User talk:InformationvsInjustice

My past WP:PG violations

I deeply value WP as one of the most important assets on the web. I recently decided to up my game and increase my involvement. I have also committed to being a better member of the community and that means adhering to the standards that ensure that it remains an asset.

As I've become more familiar with those standards, and specifically, with COI and NPOV, I realized that I failed to follow them at times in the past. In particular, I used my own external content as an authority and I created content/edited w/out revealing (non-paid) COI's. I am now going about the process of undoing those edits. I have flagged the removed edits with the following: [[User talk:InformationvsInjustice#My past WP:PG violations]]Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional disclosure WP:SOCK

I recently encountered the term "Sock puppet". In the above spirit of openness, I must disclose that this account was originally created as a sock puppet to my original user account: JoeHubris. I created this account in order to cite my own online content in edits. All of those early edits have been removed and flagged as above. This has been my only account since 2012. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cinematic television for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cinematic television is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinematic television 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 article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sandstein 04:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Breaking Bad, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Quantum World Splitter

The article The Quantum World Splitter has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

I see Crater Illusion was your first contribution in a long while. Welcome back! I started a couple of discussions on the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crater Illusion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Convex and Concave. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horatii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triplet. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of an invitation

Hi! I think it was in this edit of yours that we suddenly had hundreds of links to the new dab page to disambiguate. Care to join us in that project? (I'm not complaining about your edit—I feel your pain!) I'm serious—as someone clearly knowledgeable in this subject matter, you would do a far better job of disambiguating links than your average (cough) joe or jane. You could work from this list, which uses the DabSolver tool to make the job a little quicker. Are you game? Ping me if you like. — Gorthian (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gorthian, I would be glad to help, mind you, I don't know how much time I can dedicate to this, however, is there a bot, where by you can change links on multiple pages by criteria? Because that would make it easy. Let me come clean: I totally saw this coming. It's rooted in whoever set up that original page. They didn't understand that they were two, distinct movements and then linked all the congressmen who used that ticket. sigh...InformationvsInjustice (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's a simple way to do it, just direct them by state.InformationvsInjustice (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, kudos for you for untangling all that! Unfortunately, there's no bot; it's all done by human judgement. Dab solver is pretty good, though: you can see a good chunk of the page and get some context. DisamAssist can be fast, but it's hard to see much of the article you're fixing, so I use it less.

Go by state, eh? I'll get a list of north/south states to keep handy; some of those along the Mason-Dixon Line confound me. Thanks for the tip! — Gorthian (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Info ob injuria 19:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Here's to an intelligent split and edit of Opposition Party (United States) and all the subsequent thoughtful link disambiguations. — Gorthian (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation at Romulus and Remus

Hi, InformationvsInjustice. I was interested to see your post on Talk:Romulus and Remus, and typed a reply, but when I went to post it, I found you had already blanked yours. I admit I don't understand why, because it's important information — copyright violation (which this was, not merely plagiarism) in articles is taken seriously, and must be removed. I don't have access to the book itself, but I found the passage you quote via Google books.[1] (Please note that other people can't necessarily see what I see in Google books — it varies depending on your location, and probably other things as well, which is the reason Google books is not a good source to refer to.) Since you say "this passage, as well as others", the best thing would be if you removed all passages in the article that come from the book, with reference to the book and the page. I'm assuming you do have access to the book..? Or, if you're doubtful about how to do that, could you please copy the relevant passages for me here, with page references, and I'll remove them? Bishonen | talk 00:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me so soon. I believe that the book may in fact have plagiarized the article, and not the other way around. I thought I might have jumped the gun. Frankly, despite a modest run at the copyright/plagiarism guidelines I was not certain whether or not it was. The book is entitled: The Esoteric Codex: Demigods of Classical Mythology by Brian Reineking.

The portions in question are:

The legend as a whole encapsulates Rome's ideas of itself, its origins and moral values. For modern scholarship, it remains one of the most complex and problematic of all foundation myths, particularly in the manner of Remus's death. Ancient historians had no doubt that Romulus gave his name to the city. Most modern historians believe his name a back-formation from the name Rome; the basis for Remus's name and role remain subjects of ancient and modern speculation. The myth was fully developed into something like an "official", chronological version in the Late Republican and early Imperial era; Roman historians dated the city's foundation to between 758 and 728 BC, and Plutarch reckoned the twins' birth year as 771 BC. A tradition that gave Romulus a distant ancestor in the semi-divine Trojan prince Aeneas was further embellished, and Romulus was made the direct ancestor of Rome's first Imperial dynasty. Possible historical bases for the broad mythological narrative remain unclear and disputed.[3] The image of the she-wolf suckling the divinely fathered twins became an iconic representation of the city and its founding legend, making Romulus and Remus preeminent among the feral children of ancient mythography.--From the article's lead section.

And the entire "Legend in ancient sources" section.

Let me know how I can help.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION: The entire lead of the "Legend in ancient sources.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to reply on Bishonen's talk page. It's fine here, but you might want to look at my note there at User talk:Bishonen #Plagiarism. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was popping by anyway, in response to your note at my talk. You did the right thing here; though as it happens, the passages in question are definitely Wikipedia's (they're among the few things of yesteryear I still remember writing). Almost all such online copies of Wikipedia articles contain some kind of clue of origin - they're usually ~~cut~~ copied and pasted, with minimal further editing; so you'll find things like "External Links" at the end of pages (and of course, the links are completely dead.) I like to mildly hassle these people, and will sometimes leave a sarcastic note on the "review" page for the "book" - almost all GNU-re-publishers have such a page. By the way, all Wikipedia articles can be republished for profit, or given away for free, by anyone. Legally, certain terms and conditions apply even to GNU material, but one could spend a lifetime pursuing infractions. They're absolutely rife. I can't imagine who buys them. Maybe they're just click-bait.

Anyway, I thought you might find "Earwig's copyvio detector" useful: see [2]. I'll get back to you on the rewrite, under a different section, some time today (I hope). Haploidavey (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:OUP#Apply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:OUP#Apply. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, InformationvsInjustice. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia email - WP:OUP.
Message added 19:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC). 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 {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romulus & Remus

My apologies for not responding to your note at my talk - your message at G&R sums up my own difficulties, past and present, in even thinking about the topic. I was waiting to see how things went for you... whatever happens, this needs input, and I'll give mine (fwiw) at the "rewrite" talk-page asap. You've done a lot of work on this, and for that, I tip my hat to you. One thing's for sure - we can't editorially disentangle the matter(s) by editorial selection or analysis of "primary"(??) sources. We have to use modern, secondary scholarship. Here's hoping. Haploidavey (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, before bed; have you applied for JSTOR access? Essential for this subject matter, and there's quite a waiting list. Haploidavey (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, InformationvsInjustice. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Rome

I don't know if you'll find this of use - and, I should add, you most likely know of it already - but it's at least interesting, and probably relevant to your enormous current undertakings. Festus might be an early source for the claim that Romulus named the city after himself - your Latin seems infinitely better than mine, but (as far as I can make out), this is claimed sub verba the very brief entry for "Romam" (326L) - you'll need to scroll up a page or two to p.780 - sorry for that! It might be a common supposition, or a piece of typically learned (and probably mistaken) Roman etymologising. The linkled work is actually Paulus' late Roman epitome of Festus' epitome of Flaccus (epitomes ad infinitum?) but it's hugely important in the scholarship and very frequently cited (crtitically, one hopes) by most modern scholarship on early Rome. I'll try to track down more on this claim and its prevalence/provenance. I'm fairly sure Wiseman's Remus cites the same Romam entry but I seem to have mislaid my paper copy. Probably lent it out, unwisemanly. Haploidavey (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've had some really constructive feedback at the G&R page, from an exceptionaly fine editor. That's good to see - hardly any of the G&R participants seem to look in at the project page these days, if the viewing statistics are anything to go by. Haploidavey (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Well, it's I who should thank you. You can be sure it'll be mauled about, but I have to say (off-page, as it were) that you've done extraordinary work in knocking all that carnage into two useful articles. Sure, there's a lot to be done, but now nobody needs to flounder through, and then inevitably give up because the whole thing's an insoluble and overcomplicated mash-up of this, that and the other. Haploidavey (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is the first article I've created "the right way". Years ago, I created an article on "Cinematic Television". The work I did on it was sound, but I didn't really know (care?) what the community standards were and so it ran into trouble. I didn't seek out any help. No projects, no talk pages, nothing. I didn't use my sandbox. I just threw it up there live. I didn't submit it for assessment, either. I then proceeded to link to it from all over the place. Again, something I didn't know was not okay. It got deleted :-) The whole thing made me unnecessarily gun-shy.

Even though I was still nervous replacing the entire old article, I felt okay about it. You sir, are a big reason. Please feel free to involve me in anything to which you feel I could contribute. With your leave, I will do the same. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It got deleted"... even typing that hurts. Anyway, you're very kind. Do pop up anywherever and anywhenever you think useful. And I'll do the same. :-) Haploidavey (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to various article spin-offs

Always a pleasure! Haploidavey (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General and specific question regarding BLP

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi, Thanks for contributing! I have done a couple of articles about living persons before, however, I am trying to be more conscientious and a better member of the WP community. This is an article about the artist Henk Pander. He meets WP:N WP:V criteria. I would appreciate any general feedback regarding such an article.

I do have a specific concern:

Is there a blanket ban on creating an article on a subject to whom you are known personally? I know Mr. Pander, although I have not seen him for many years, he is a friend of my family. I feel confident I can comply with NPOV. I am an experienced editor and I am a professional writer. Once completed, I will tag the article for W:BLP assessment.

Thanks again.

Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no blanket ban, but please make sure you have read and understood the Conflict of interest rules. I also highly suggest you use the Article Wizard to create your draft, so that it can be reviewed by experienced editors after submission. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, there is no such ban, if you are careful. Read WP:COI and WP:PSCOI, be open about your connection with the subject, and get someone else to review your article, either by creating a draft via WP:Articles for creation or by asking for comments at an appropriate WikiProject, if there is one, or at a noticeboard like WP:BLP/N or WP:COI/N. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. I will use the Wizard, that's a great resource.

Your submission at Articles for creation: She-wolf (Roman mythology) has been accepted

She-wolf (Roman mythology), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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!

SwisterTwister talk 02:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic edits to Romulus

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with these edits being "fixes", as in each instance they complicate rather than simplify the language, introduce unnecessary details, confuse events, and, as I've said twice already, inappropriately use the present tense to describe past events, creating an inconsistent narrative that I think it unencyclopedic. I'll go through them one at a time:

In the first sentence, the important fact is their relationship to Numitor, since he was rightfully king. It's only necessary to state one relationship at a time.
Numitor isn't described as the "former" king in either Livy or Dionysius; while it's possible that he had ruled for some period of time before being deposed by Amulius, both sources simply say that Amulius seized the throne and drove out Numitor. He may or may not have been a "former" king, but he was certainly the "rightful" one.
The descent of Romulus and Remus from Aeneas and from Latinus is relevant, but not necessary to state in a very brief summary. It's a detail to a detail several steps removed from their royal birth, and part of a longer narrative, which is fully covered in the Romulus and Remus article. Added to this, the wording implies that Aeneas married Latinus, rather than the king's daughter (and it's not clear from the source material whether Lavinia or Creüsa was the ancestress of the Alban Kings; another detail that's really not necessary in a brief summary). Describing a person as "mythical" comes with the added baggage of implying that he did not exist, which is a dispute that this article needs to avoid. I've been very careful about my use of the words "myth" and "legend" in this article just in order to avoid that connotation. Besides which, Latinus was the king of Latium, not Latia. And neither Livy nor Dionysius say that he founded his kingdom.
It's not necessary to add "before the twins' birth" or say that Numitor's son or sons were murdered after he was deposed, if you simply leave the elements of the narrative in order. These would be naturally assumed in a concise narrative; it would be even more apparent without the digression into the distant ancestry of Romulus and Remus, a detail that could easily be footnoted, if it has to be included here (but it really doesn't, as it's not particularly relevant to the account of their miraculous birth; the story would be the same without it).
There is no justification for a "citation needed" tag for a footnote to an adequately cited statement, which additionally identifies the source material beyond any dispute. It's in Livy, the exact citation follows, and we don't need a secondary source to state that it's at that point in Livy.
We can assume that Amulius didn't order the infants thrown into the Tiber before they were born. It's not necessary to say that they were born first.
The detail that the Tiber had recently flooded is important, because that's why the servants were unable to reach the river, and left the basket elsewhere. Amulius didn't order them thrown into the rain-swollen Tiber; he ordered them thrown into the Tiber. The fact that it was rain-swollen was why it flooded, and the fact that it flooded was why the ground was marshy, making it impossible to reach the river itself. They weren't left on the riverbank in either Livy or Dionysius.
Dionysius doesn't mention the fig tree, but it was an important detail, not only in Livy, but in most accounts of the legend. There's no reason to delete it here just because it doesn't occur in Dionysius; that's not NPOV.
There's no reason to begin the next paragraph with, "in the well-known episode that followed". It's surplus verbiage in a place where we're trying to summarize events. It's a given that whatever is described next "followed" whatever previously happened; there's no reason to describe it as an "episode", and it's not relevant to the narrative whether it's "well-known". It may be included because it's well-known, but we don't need to explain that each part of the narrative is well-known in order to justify including it. That's assumed.
Splitting a relatively straightforward sentence into three here doesn't make it simpler. It makes it more verbose for no apparent reason. Also, the present tense is not appropriate here; all of the events of the narrative are described in the past tense, as is normally done.
Saying that Romulus and Remus learned of their origin "after they become involved in a conflict between the followers of the king and those of their grandfather" adds an unnecessary and confusing detail. The important fact is that they learned of it; the reason why they learned of it is a detail to a detail; but saying that there was a conflict and that they were involved in it is so vague that you have to provide additional information in order to make sense of it. With this language it becomes necessary to say what the conflict was, and how they were involved, and why this would lead to the revelation of their true origin. If you aren't going to do that, then this is just excess verbiage. And it's not necessary to the narrative, any more than stories of attacking bandits and giving the loot to the herdsmen is. This is supposed to be a brief summary; there's no reason to lengthen it with unnecessary details that just call for more information to make sense of them.
Romulus and Remus didn't overthrow and kill Amulius; they killed him. It wasn't necessary to do anything else to him.
No reason to delete a transitional adverb, "then" from the sentence moving from restoring Numitor to the throne to founding a new city. It's helpful to have that, rather than simply shifting from one deed to another.
The brothers were quarreling over the omens; the vultures were omens. It's not necessary to introduce all this imprecise and complicating language ("the conflict escalates") or go into detail about why they didn't manage to resolve the dispute before it became violent. And again, the present tense, here used twice, is not appropriate for this narrative.
You've footnoted the detail of the wall, although apparently it's common to Livy, Dionysius, and Plutarch; it's an important detail and doesn't need to be a footnote.
The uncertainty about who killed Remus was clearly worded before. While Dionysius mentions a specific culprit as one of several versions of events, it's not the only one, and the way it's worded now implies that a specific person was responsible, while other versions and Livy simply say that Remus was killed (if Romulus didn't kill him himself, which is the first of multiple versions reported by Livy, but not by Dionysius). The reworded passage emphasizes Romulus as fratricide, and indicates a specific person as the alternative culprit, while the previous wording allows for one or more versions, and concludes with the possibility of fratricide, which is suitable as the most dramatic, but not necessarily preferred version.
The death of Faustulus in one version related by Dionysius is not particularly relevant to this summary.
"Now the sole leader of the colonists, Romulus" → "With the dispute over, Romulus" is a less interesting transition, emphasizing "the dispute" (a bit bland as a description of a battle in which Remus died), instead of the result.
The Parilia was a relatively important detail, at least to Dionysius; but more importantly it gives the date of the founding of Rome, which is hardly unimportant to the Romulus myth. There's no reason to footnote it.
Dionysius doesn't say that Romulus received Numitor's help in addressing the people. He says that he followed Numitor's advice on how to address them.
The previous wording emphasizes the result of Romulus praying, sacrificing, and receiving omens; the reworded sentence reverses the order of events and removes that emphasis.

While I am perfectly happy to resolve imprecise or misleading language, improve or streamlining when necessary, I feel that the former language in each case was clearer, more accurate, and preferable to the current wording. P Aculeius (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: You rock. It gives me heart to see people so involved.

Numitor isn't described as the "former" king in either Livy or Dionysius; while it's possible that he had ruled for some period of time before being deposed by Amulius, both sources simply say that Amulius seized the throne and drove out Numitor. He may or may not have been a "former" king, but he was certainly the "rightful" one.

Plutarch, Life of Romulus Ch.3 p.2: "Amulius divided the whole inheritance into two parts, setting the treasures and gold which had been brought from Troy over against the kingdom, and Numitor chose the kingdom. Amulius, then, in possession of the treasure, and made more powerful by it than Numitor, easily took the kingdom away from his brother"

Dionysius, History I 85: "When Numitor, upon the death of Amulius, had resumed his rule and had spent a little time in restoring the city from its late disorder to its former orderly state, he presently thought of providing an independent rule for the youths by founding another city."

While the language in Livy is more ambiguous, these passages state clearly that he was king and that Amulius deposed him.

"Took the kingdom away" doesn't necessarily mean that Numitor ever had possession of it, so Plutarch is ambiguous; Livy is ambiguous; and the argument that Dionysius isn't ambiguous hangs entirely on the word "resumed" (in a translation, I add) occurring removed a considerable length from the story of Amulius usurping the throne. So while we might like to assume that this is the correct interpretation, there remains considerable ambiguity; hence my choice of "rightful" as an adjective to describe Numitor's kingship, instead of "former". It avoids the problem of ambiguity entirely, and further indicates that Numitor should have been king, instead of Amulius, which is a useful shade of meaning in this context. On a subsequent occasion you insist that a standard part of the story should be omitted, or at best limited to a footnote, because not every version mentioned by the authors involves it, rendering it ambiguous. Yet you inconsistently argue that this ambiguity can be ignored or left in a footnote, when all that is necessary to avoid the problem is to reword the sentence... or in fact, restore the previous wording.

Describing a person as "mythical" comes with the added baggage of implying that he did not exist, which is a dispute that this article needs to avoid. I've been very careful about my use of the words "myth" and "legend" in this article just in order to avoid that connotation.

I'm not sure if I understand this. This is a myth. It is a legend. A reader should not be mislead into thinking this is an historical record. He's as much a myth as Zeus, or Hercules, or Amenominakanushi.

In English, the word "myth" is widely understood to mean something other than its technical meaning (a traditional story told for a specific purpose): it is understood to mean "fictional, imaginary, false". To a lesser degree that connotation also attaches to the word "legend", although it is more widely understood that real persons and events can be described as "legends" or "legendary". A neutral point of view in relating the subjects of mythology/ancient history requires that one not use language suggesting that a particular story is false or person fictional, unless the story itself or the source being cited so states. As editors we do not imply that some gods are real and others false, that legendary figures or mythical beasts are fictional or imaginary. While this does not preclude the careful use of the words "myth" and "legend" to refer to specific things, it means that one must be extremely careful not to create ambiguity that would lead people to infer that we are describing whatever it is as false. The persons concerned with the Romulus myth may or may not have existed, in some form or other; so it is inappropriate to describe them as mythical.

This is an important point, fundamental to development of the Romulus article. If we assume Romulus as entirely fictional, belonging only in an article on Roman myth, then he has no place in what's generally considered history, except as symbol, or cult figure, or sterotype. He might have profound significance, but no substance, and no "acts" or "real incidents" could be attached to him as a mooted King of Rome. But if he were removed on the grounds that he's likely a composite figure, or fictional, or mythic, we'd be left with an exactly Romulus-shaped hole; we can call it "Romulus". Some important elements of his life and rule are inevitably fiction (or more accurately, likely part of a mythos or tradition - for which, see Romulus and Remus) but we don't actually know which, and we mostly we don't need to know which. In the Romulus article, we should play it straight; the sources say what sources say. A clear narrative is preferable, one with minimal circumstantial details, cross-questioning between sources, commentary and complexity en route. Once that's done, we've recourse to the commentary, critiques and analysis of modern secondary sources. Haploidavey (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification for a "citation needed" tag for a footnote to an adequately cited statement, which additionally identifies the source material beyond any dispute. It's in Livy, the exact citation follows, and we don't need a secondary source to state that it's at that point in Livy.

I added the CN because you have asserted a couple of times here that he had more than one son. I went back and read Livy and I see this: "murders his brother's male issue"--Ch.I p.3. That could be either singular or plural. Whereas the other two definitely only mention a single son. So, please point the article at a source that explicitly says "sons" or "2 sons" or something.

Your translation says, "male issue", mine says "male children". You could argue that your translation is ambiguous, but the fact that "male issue" is given instead of "son" implies that there were either multiple sons, or at least one son with sons of his own. That's the natural interpretation in your translation; mine is simply clearer. In either cases, no citation is needed; anyone checking the cited source will see what it says.

the present tense is not appropriate here; all of the events of the narrative are described in the past tense, as is normally done.

Thanks for catching that. I have a bad habit of falling back into the present tense.

Saying that Romulus and Remus learned of their origin "after they become involved in a conflict between the followers of the king and those of their grandfather" adds an unnecessary and confusing detail.

The important fact is that they learned of it; the reason why they learned of it is a detail to a detail; but saying that there was a conflict and that they were involved in it is so vague that you have to provide additional information in order to make sense of it.

The story of this conflict is a major part of the three narratives. It warrants details.

Not unless you're going to add them, which frankly isn't necessary, any more than other incidents of their childhood and adolescence. Describing how they learned of their origin is a detail that takes a great deal of space to fill in; several sentences in all probability. It's not like adding two or three words to an existing sentence; doing it properly would give undue weight to a relatively unimportant detail in what's intended to be a very brief summary. Two paragraphs is all it was; you could write a whole paragraph just summarizing how they learned of their origin, but you don't need to. It's not helpful to the summary of the myth, because everything else reads the same without it.

The brothers were quarreling over the omens; the vultures were omens. It's not necessary to introduce all this imprecise and complicating language ("the conflict escalates") or go into detail about why they didn't manage to resolve the dispute before it became violent.

Well, again, this is where the articles on the individual accounts come in. If a reader wants to know what the nature of the dispute is, they can go to the historian's article and read more. Again, the reason is that the conflict is described differently by the different sources. We don't want the article to read: "Livy says... but Plutarch writes... Dionysius, however, says otherwise." If you don't you're picking one over the other and that's not our job as editors. This is the sprawl problem. The only way to keep the summary readable and still NPOV is to keep the verbiage as specific as possible without favoring one source over the other.

The verbiage in question isn't necessary at all; reading the summary there is no ambiguity in the language I used for this passage. You're adding unnecessary details that require explanation, which requires separating different accounts from different historians, when it's not even necessary to mention the things you're adding here.

You've footnoted the detail of the wall, although apparently it's common to Livy, Dionysius, and Plutarch; it's an important detail and doesn't need to be a footnote.

The uncertainty about who killed Remus was clearly worded before. While Dionysius mentions a specific culprit as one of several versions of events, it's not the only one, and the way it's worded now implies that a specific person was responsible, while other versions and Livy simply say that Remus was killed (if Romulus didn't kill him himself, which is the first of multiple versions reported by Livy, but not by Dionysius). The reworded passage emphasizes Romulus as fratricide, and indicates a specific person as the alternative culprit, while the previous wording allows for one or more versions, and concludes with the possibility of fratricide, which is suitable as the most dramatic, but not necessarily preferred version.

My point exactly. How do we treat the accounts where he's killed in a melee, and the wall is never mentioned? Here again, we must not trade a desire for specificity and succinctness for NPOV. Which is what happens if the article says "Wall Jumping/killing" as opposed to "wall jumping/killing" OR "melee/killing" or "melee/killed by Romulus" or "melee/killed by Celer". It's a problem. The only solution is language that doesn't favor one or the other. That's what the different historian's/sources articles are for.

As I wrote it, it clearly states that Remus was killed in the fighting after leaping the wall. All three authors appear to mention both elements; they're standard parts of the story. The only conflict is whether Romulus or someone else killed Remus, and that uncertainty is perfectly clear from what I wrote. Your rewording changes the emphasis, without stating that one account is right and the other wrong. I don't understand why you keep talking about a neutral point of view, while ignoring the fact that it was written neutrally in the first place.

The Parilia was a relatively important detail, at least to Dionysius; but more importantly it gives the date of the founding of Rome, which is hardly unimportant to the Romulus myth. There's no reason to footnote it.

Then it belongs in the Dionysius of Halicarnassus article, not here. Unless it's footnoted, where it can be seen if the reader wants to go further.

That makes no sense. An article about Dionysius should have nothing to say about his comment on the Parilia in relating the story of Romulus. It's not an important detail for Dionysius. It is for Romulus. It also places the event being described in context, which is perfectly appropriate for this article. Taking a relevant and important point and shunting it into a footnote is what's questionable.

This article's topic is VERY problematic. It is a challenge for me as a person who values the meter and flow of prose. I want to say things that sound better to my eyes (mixed metaphors, anyone?), but, like every other article, this one must comply with WP:PG. Deciding that "the wall" should be included but not "the melee" is NPOV. But to be fully WP:DUE for the various accounts/descriptions would violate MOS:ACCESS. The only alternative is to limit the article to the general tense and make sure that a reader is directed to the individual accounts which don't run into this problem. :-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic edits to Romulus II

@Haploidavey:@P Aculeius: Since this is my talk page, I trust you will indulge me in taking this moment to say how awesome this exchange is. I spend my days with people fixing licenses, resolving auto registration troubles and having exactly ZERO conversations or discussions about the things I am most passionate. :-)

"Took the kingdom away" doesn't necessarily mean that Numitor ever had possession of it, so Plutarch is ambiguous; Livy is ambiguous; and the argument that Dionysius isn't ambiguous hangs entirely on the word "resumed" (in a translation, I add) occurring removed a considerable length from the story of Amulius usurping the throne. So while we might like to assume that this is the correct interpretation, there remains considerable ambiguity; hence my choice of "rightful" as an adjective to describe Numitor's kingship, instead of "former". It avoids the problem of ambiguity entirely, and further indicates that Numitor should have been king, instead of Amulius, which is a useful shade of meaning in this context. On a subsequent occasion you insist that a standard part of the story should be omitted, or at best limited to a footnote, because not every version mentioned by the authors involves it, rendering it ambiguous. Yet you inconsistently argue that this ambiguity can be ignored or left in a footnote, when all that is necessary to avoid the problem is to reword the sentence... or in fact, restore the previous wording.

I would argue that you cannot take something away from someone if they never had it. I think it's fair to say that the accounts, read together, are correctly interpreted as "Numitor was king and Amulius usurped his throne." That said, I looked at Livy's latin text and it uses the verb Lego ("legat") which could be read as "crowned" but could also be read as "designated" or "chosen". So there's that... totally unhelpful bit. :-)

Describing a person as "mythical" comes with the added baggage of implying that he did not exist, which is a dispute that this article needs to avoid. I've been very careful about my use of the words "myth" and "legend" in this article just in order to avoid that connotation.

In English, the word "myth" is widely understood to mean something other than its technical meaning (a traditional story told for a specific purpose): it is understood to mean "fictional, imaginary, false". To a lesser degree that connotation also attaches to the word "legend", although it is more widely understood that real persons and events can be described as "legends" or "legendary". A neutral point of view in relating the subjects of mythology/ancient history requires that one not use language suggesting that a particular story is false or person fictional, unless the story itself or the source being cited so states. As editors we do not imply that some gods are real and others false, that legendary figures or mythical beasts are fictional or imaginary. While this does not preclude the careful use of the words "myth" and "legend" to refer to specific things, it means that one must be extremely careful not to create ambiguity that would lead people to infer that we are describing whatever it is as false. The persons concerned with the Romulus myth may or may not have existed, in some form or other; so it is inappropriate to describe them as mythical.

This is an important point, fundamental to development of the Romulus article. If we assume Romulus as entirely fictional, belonging only in an article on Roman myth, then he has no place in what's generally considered history, except as symbol, or cult figure, or stereotype. He might have profound significance, but no substance, and no "acts" or "real incidents" could be attached to him as a mooted King of Rome. But if he were removed from a historical or quasi-historic account of Rome's foundation, on the grounds that he's likely a composite figure, or fictional, or mythic, we'd still be left with an exactly Romulus-shaped hole; we can call it "Romulus". Some important elements of his life and rule are inevitably fiction (or more accurately, likely part of a mythos or tradition - for which, see Romulus and Remus) but we don't actually know which, and we mostly we don't need to know which. In the Romulus article, we should play it straight; the sources say what sources say. A clear narrative is preferable, one with minimal circumstantial details, cross-questioning between sources, commentary and complexity en route. Once that's done, we've recourse to the commentary, critiques and analysis of modern secondary sources. Haploidavey (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had never considered this. THANK YOU. I have done a number of edits related to this myth and I am going to go back over them with this in mind. If you are so inclined, please do the same. If you see something that doesn't jibe with this point, please edit it.

There is no justification for a "citation needed" tag for a footnote to an adequately cited statement, which additionally identifies the source material beyond any dispute. It's in Livy, the exact citation follows, and we don't need a secondary source to state that it's at that point in Livy.

I added the CN because you have asserted a couple of times here that he had more than one son. I went back and read Livy and I see this: "murders his brother's male issue"--Ch.I p.3. That could be either singular or plural. Whereas the other two definitely only mention a single son. So, please point the article at a source that explicitly says "sons" or "2 sons" or something.

Your translation says, "male issue", mine says "male children". You could argue that your translation is ambiguous, but the fact that "male issue" is given instead of "son" implies that there were either multiple sons, or at least one son with sons of his own. That's the natural interpretation in your translation; mine is simply clearer. In either cases, no citation is needed; anyone checking the cited source will see what it says.

Okay, I looked at Livy's original Latin and it reads "Stirpem", which is definitely singular.

As I wrote it, it clearly states that Remus was killed in the fighting after leaping the wall. All three authors appear to mention both elements; they're standard parts of the story. The only conflict is whether Romulus or someone else killed Remus, and that uncertainty is perfectly clear from what I wrote. Your rewording changes the emphasis, without stating that one account is right and the other wrong. I don't understand why you keep talking about a neutral point of view, while ignoring the fact that it was written neutrally in the first place.

Well, I'm not sure I agree.

Livy says "Remus died from a blow received in the crowd". And then "A more common version is "jumped the wall".
Plutarch's version is frankly a mess, however, he does says "jumped the wall" (but then goes on to say "Faustulus also died in the battle"???)
Dionysius says "[The followers of the two brothers...] arming themselves without orders from their leaders, began war; and a sharp battle ensued in which many were slain on both sides [...] Remus [was] slain in this action." He then goes on to say here are the other "less likely" accounts, and mentions the wall.

So, I think the correct reading of the Livy and Dionysius is that Remus died during a melee. The fact that they mention the wall account, and even say it's "more common" doesn't change their language insofar as their version of the fratricide is that it occurred in a melee and that the account of the wall is one to which they do not give credit as the actual events. Plutarch does say "wall" but he also refers to a battle, so, because it is a big piece of the story, I would propose the following:

"The conflict between the twins only escalated in the wake of the omens. It culminates with the death of Remus. In some accounts, he is killed after mockingly leaping over his brother's newly constructed walls. In others, he dies during a violent clash between those loyal to him and those loyal to Romulus. Some accounts say that he died by Romulus' own hands, and some that he was killed by a follower of Romulus."

Anyway, that's my two denarii (denariis?).

Each time you address this point it sounds like you're saying that Remus leaping the wall that Romulus had begun and being killed in a battle are mutually exclusive; that the article needs to say one or the other, but not both. I've always read the accounts as a battle instigated by or following Remus leaping the wall; both events are usually treated as if they occurred, and the most logical way to describe them is as a connected unity. Whether Faustulus was involved seems to be a minor detail that doesn't need to be mentioned here.

I still object to the proposed wording on multiple grounds. The conflict wasn't some pre-existing thing that was increased by the omens; it flowed from the omens. So it didn't escalate, and "in the wake of" is a cliché. The second sentence is completely unnecessary, since subject and verb can easily appear in the following sentence. The three that follow that split what could easily be said in one sentence into three more, as if these are all mutually exclusive options, which they're not. There are three cases of the wrong tense used here, and some awkward phrasing ("after mockingly leaping" conjures a ridiculous or melodramatic image, and it just sounds awkward to split "after" from "leaping"). I think you should return to the previous wording, which was perfectly clear. P Aculeius (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Parilia was a relatively important detail, at least to Dionysius; but more importantly it gives the date of the founding of Rome, which is hardly unimportant to the Romulus myth. There's no reason to footnote it.

Then it belongs in the Dionysius of Halicarnassus article, not here. Unless it's footnoted, where it can be seen if the reader wants to go further.

That makes no sense. An article about Dionysius should have nothing to say about his comment on the Parilia in relating the story of Romulus. It's not an important detail for Dionysius. It is for Romulus. It also places the event being described in context, which is perfectly appropriate for this article. Taking a relevant and important point and shunting it into a footnote is what's questionable.

Okay, I should have been clearer. There is a "Foundation of Rome" section of the Dionysius article, and it contains a description of his account.

OR

It could be in a brief section on this page under a "Primary sources" section, with a brief overview of the different ancient accounts. I agree that the date is important.

OR better still

It could be in a "Date of Rome's founding" section separate from this part. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The founding date and Parilia certainly important enough to be placed "front of house" in this article. Almost everything Romulus was thought to have founded had significance for Romans and Roman historians (offhand I can think of at least two emperors who were styled (or claimed to be) a "second Romulus" (refounders of Rome, in effect). Even his name was part of his legacy. Haploidavey (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of fratricide

@P Aculeius:Each time you address this point it sounds like you're saying that Remus leaping the wall that Romulus had begun and being killed in a battle are mutually exclusive; that the article needs to say one or the other, but not both. I've always read the accounts as a battle instigated by or following Remus leaping the wall; both events are usually treated as if they occurred, and the most logical way to describe them is as a connected unity. Whether Faustulus was involved seems to be a minor detail that doesn't need to be mentioned here.

So, Livy tells the wall-jumping tale as: Remus "in derision" leaped over the wall and was "slain by Romulus in a passion". His other version is that "having met in an altercation", Remus is killed by "a blow received in the crowd".

Dionysius tells that Remus died in a battle between the two groups of followers. In his recount of the wall tale, Remus derides (mocks?) the wall and jumps over it saying that any enemy could do the same. At which point Celer, the foreman of the project says something to the effect of "I can make sure one enemy never jumps over this wall again." and brained him with a pickax on the spot.

Plutarch says that when Remus was enraged when he discovered Romulus' cheating in the contest of the omens. When he found his brother, he ridiculed (mocked?) the trench he was building and when he jumped over it, he was struck dead on the spot.

So, yeah, I do see them as incompatible. The key to the wall jumping/derisive ridiculing version is its two hits nature: "someone hit Remus" and "Remus hit the ground". Whereas the other account is a melee/battle/fight/donnybrook event. The best support for their not contradicting one another is in Plutarch, who mentions (at least in my english translation) a battle after describing the wall-jumping-Remus-bashing incident in telling us that Faustulus died in it as well.

I still object to the proposed wording on multiple grounds. The conflict wasn't some pre-existing thing that was increased by the omens; it flowed from the omens. So it didn't escalate, and "in the wake of" is a cliché.

I re-read the portions, and I can see your point. There is language to the effect of "omen argument caused fratricide". However:

Dionysius talks about the origins of the dispute as their newly discovered heritage and the ambition of both to become the leader of the new community. (Book I ch.85 p.5)

Livy says that the root of the problem was ambition and the fact that they were twins (no older brother to assert seniority). (Book I ch.6)

Plutarch says: "But when they set out to establish their city, a dispute at once arose concerning the site." (Lives Ch.9 p.4)

But I agree that the augury does seem to have been the flash point.

The second sentence is completely unnecessary, since subject and verb can easily appear in the following sentence. The three that follow that split what could easily be said in one sentence into three more, as if these are all mutually exclusive options, which they're not. There are three cases of the wrong tense used here, and some awkward phrasing ("after mockingly leaping" conjures a ridiculous or melodramatic image, and it just sounds awkward to split "after" from "leaping"). I think you should return to the previous wording, which was perfectly clear. P Aculeius (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More absurdist than melodramatic. Apologies for "mockingly leaping". Wow, that really sucks. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

If already linked in the text, we do not link again in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Thanks for that. I haven't edited any medical articles before. Because medical language occupies a sort of "dual space" between common and scientific terms, I wasn't sure if that guideline applied equally. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, InformationvsInjustice. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Oxford University Press - Journals Accounts.
Message added 01:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC). 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 {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Please see the e-mail for your log-in credentials. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romulus and Remus

I'll take a look; not an area I know much about, but I hope I can give you some useful feedback. Do you plan to nominate this article for good article status? Or are you just looking for general feedback about things that might be improved? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I didn't know nominating for good article status was a thing. I guess that is different from "assessment"? Have you thoughts as to whether I should or not? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, just yet. There are a set of criteria you can look at if you're interested, but let's just look at the article as it stands and see what can be done to improve it, and we can talk about where to go from there if you decide to keep working on it. I just had a quick read through, and will come back with more comments later, but very briefly for now:

Is there scope for an article on Depictions of Romulus and Remus? The gallery of pictures at the end is a bit more than can really fit in an article, but if there's enough scholarly discussion perhaps a separate article could work, with a summary in this one?
I think the primary source list at the start of the article needs to be sourced for any discussion. How about a table giving the sources, and then a paragraph or two giving modern scholars' opinions of the sources, if you can find some discussion?
The "In popular culture" section seems too long to me, and for my money could go completely. I always think it's best for, e.g., the film to link back to the main article, rather than have a section like this. However, if you have sources discussing any of these representations as being of interest, that could justify some of these.

I hope that's helpful; more in the next few days, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: "Is there scope for an article on Depictions of Romulus and Remus? The gallery of pictures at the end is a bit more than can really fit in an article, but if there's enough scholarly discussion perhaps a separate article could work, with a summary in this one?"

My own position as an editor (I hope wholly in keeping with WP:MOS) is that images are under-used in content. They can convey so much information and they invite engagement in readers. Please tell me if I have that wrong. R & R, Romulus and the she-wolf have been one of the major subjects in Western art since the beginning. The Lupercal, Mars' rape of Rhea, the death of Amulius, the Sabine women, the death of Tatius, there are two many works to name them all. The galleries address that significant aspect of the subjects.

If there's more value in having a link to a gallery than the images themselves, please enlighten me. That said, I could see a Foundation of Rome in art page.

There's no question the article could use more exposition on their depiction in the various ages, I might have something to contribute, owing to my newly minted Oxford Academic Journals subscription (polishes his fingernails and then rubs them on his lapel), but it's not an area I'm as versed in as the others. I might look around for someone to help. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMAGES is the place to look; "don't overload the article with images" is a judgement call, but I think you're going to find a lot of editors will consider you have too many at the moment. If you think you can make a case for them, leave them in there; I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the strictures in the manual of style. I think Foundation of Rome in art is definitely worth considering. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie:, thanks bro. Please take a moment to look at She-wolf (Roman mythology) (Above was a typo). Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an excellent start. I'll take another look at Romulus and Remus, probably tonight or tomorrow, and see if I can come up with more comments for you on that. Let's look at the she-wolf article afterwards; I don't have the bandwidth to look at too many articles at the same time! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look, and one thing that jumped out at me was the citations for the primary sources discussion. Quite a bit is unsourced, and more is sourced to the Dionysius and Plutarch. It would be much better if you could find a summary of the primary sources in a secondary source, and use that to give the account of the primary sources. The problem with directly quoting the primary sources without any other scholarly sources is one of due weight; are you quoting or summarizing the elements that scholars find important?

The basic structure of the article looks right: primary sources, then modern discussion, historicity, and iconography; that all makes sense. However, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and currently it's a summary of the legend; it should include summary discussion of all the sections in the article. Conversely everything in the lead should be also in the article. I would suggest leaving the lead till last, though; I find that if I write a lead before the article is more or less complete, I just have to go back and rewrite it as I rework the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Just to be clear, are these comments for the she-wolf or R & R article? And thanks again.

I was referring to R&R. By the way, that edit you made earlier moving some material from the lead to the body was a simple way to really improve the article! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Also, is it possible you could share something from JSTOR from me? Is that allowed? I'm wait-listed on it.

Sure; you can also request things at WP:RX, which is remarkably effective. Let me know what you're looking for, and send me a Wikipedia email so I know your email address, and I'll email it to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, InformationvsInjustice. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is The Wikipedia Library - Newspapers.com.
Message added 03:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC). 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 {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Julie Thompson Klein

The article Julie Thompson Klein has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Dear InformationvsInjustice, I award you The Christianity Barnstar for all your hard work in WikiProject Christianity related articles, especially your recent creation of Vivarium (monastary). Keep up the good work! Your efforts are making a difference here! With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pelican Books

Hello InformationvsInjustice, I applied for a Pelican Book and it is approved. Some how I don't get any further information (it could be for some reason, I miss the mail). Can you have a look at it, please! DanGong (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DanGong. Alas, I am probably not the person to whom you intended to address this message. I do not have any involvement with Pelican Books. But good luck, and thanks so much for contributing :-)

You've got mail from the Wikipedia Library

Hello, InformationvsInjustice. 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 {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com and The Wikipedia Library

Your account is ready and should be live now! Happy editing!--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks

I was taking a look at the Isaac Casaubon article and noticed you've been occasionally removing links on the grounds that no such article exists. Please keep in mind that, even in the far-flung future year of 2017, redlinks serve to signal that an article is needed, and that ideally we're only supposed to remove them if we're certain the subject doesn't warrant an article. Division of Safety of Dams, maybe not, Prolegomena ad Homerum, probably. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the feedback! I'll go back through my contributions and restore as appropriate. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marcus Aurelius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xylander. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

Hiya! Just wanted to thank you for the note at my talk, and apologise for the delayed response (too much real life going on). Alas, your instinct was right. The whole thing's so far out of my wheelhouse that I wouldn't know where to start. "Cannabis" is virtually universal in the UK; that's about all I have to offer. I know so very little about the topic that I'm unable to give an opinion either way. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need sources?

I noticed that you're waiting on approval for access to The Cambridge Library at the Wikipedia Library. The Cambridge Library currently has a waitlist due to lack of available accounts. In the meantime, the Resource Exchange can help! We connect content creators with reliable sources. If you need a specific article or passage from a book that you don't have access to, drop by and leave a request. We're happy to help you access paywalled and print sources to the extent allowable by copyright law. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you work on draft for a general gangster film article?

The only thing that remains after all has been discussed to bits, is to gather all the material we could have in a general ganster film artcile, and with it see what structure we could give to the general article. Do you want to work on this? We could start something on a user subpage for a start and then when we have something worth it we could unredirect Ganster film. My knowledge on the topic is minimal, but I am good in structuring and scouting for material. How are you on this? Hoverfish Talk 22:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, @Hoverfish: herein shall the draft be :-) I trust you'll help out. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The WikiProject Film Award
		If I deserve one, you definitely deserve one for starting and expanding, the much needed Gangster film article! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Romulus's birth and death date.

In your edit summary of Romulus, You said that there was a disagreement in the sources regarding Romulus's birth and death year. Could you elaborate on this? The only birth year that the body text gave was 771 BC by Plutarch, And i figured that the year his reign ended was the year he died (Since that's how the roman monarchy supposedly worked). Koopinator (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Organized crime


	Hello, InformationvsInjustice. You are invited to join WikiProject Organized crime, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Organized crime. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious "connected contributor" tag on rewrite of Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester article

I appear to have added it when I moved some former content last December. I have no idea why. However, it is unrelated to the current content, the proposed bomb tester rewrite. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: deletion of Causeless cause

You nominated 'Causeless cause' for deletion. I request you see earlier discussion on deletion and redirection. I still think it's notable without secondary sources, since there are a lot of those, I just don't have the interest anymore. However, it's a big enough topic in modern metaphysics/occultism, that the topic had been redirected before, with information in a wider topic article. There's definitely a page it could be redirected to, perhaps the material moved, rather than deleted.--dchmelik (t|c) 05:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dchmelik: thanks so much for getting back to me so promptly and thanks for your contributions to the community. Even though I nominated this article for deletion I would prefer it not be deleted. The problem is that in its current state it just isn't up to parr. The fact that you were willing to reach out despite the fact that it's been so long and you're not really active with the topic anymore says a lot about what a good member of the community you are :-) You say that it's a big Topic in the occult community, can you give me any advice about how to find other references to it? I looked add Google Scholar and found nothing, and there are so few page visits and links to it from other pages that somehow that bigness is being obscured. Thanks so much for reaching out and I'll do what I can. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term was originated in 1800s by Madame Blavatsky (HPB) to define a metaphysical aspect of Hinduism in English. Apart from some obscure 1600s text, she's considered the founder of 'New Age,' but first, her own school of thought, Theosophy. It influenced maybe all of modern occultism, soon leading to several branches of(f) Theosophy, like what some call Neotheosophy, as well as Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (so also Wicca,) Astrum Argentum, Arcane School, Agni Yoga, Anthroposophy, Ascended Masters, etc., and other new groups appearing throughout and past the 20th century. I don't know if causeless cause is referred to in any contemporary-type scholarly articles, but there were over 23,000 results in a Google search, including from (the main?) Anthroposophy writer and many Theosophy writers, one Bahai writer. Maybe later today or next few days I could look for some more references from any of that, etc.--dchmelik (t|c) 22:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dchmelik: thanks again for helping out. I went to the live help chat and was directed to a couple of possible sources by another editor. As the article is now, I believe it should be nominated for deletion. So here's what I'd like to propose, I'd like you to revert your deletion of the tag, once it gets indexed other editors may very well be able to come and help. I'll go ahead and see if I can use those sources, and if you can make any changes as well, please do so. Hopefully, the consensus will be for keep Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess do so then. Actually, I had forgotten some of the details: HPB used the term to describe the same sort of idea in Hindu, Greek, and Jewish Kabbalah philosophy. I've just saved the article anyway, in case it ends up I need to redirect it and re-add a section someone added before (HPB's 'three fundamental propositions' on her page)--dchmelik (t|c) 22:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dchmelik: why don't you go ahead and proposed the move. There's no reason that both discussions can't happen at once. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I informally stated material could be moved and/or the page redirected, but would rather just see the article detailed. Years ago, after someone directed to a new description on HPB before, descriptions of her main ideas were removed. I'm not active enough on Wikipedia to know what people want in that article, or how to propose a move/redirect to a section.--dchmelik (t|c) 08:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Rule of lenity has been accepted

The Rule of lenity, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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!

TheMesquito^buzz 04:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iranians in Japan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

Hi, I appreciate your thanks on my edit to Arethas of Caesarea. If you are interested there are more entries in "Category:Articles incorporating text from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia with no article parameter" that could use a similar edit. I also find the Copyvio Detector at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ a useful tool in finding how much text has been copied. DivermanAU (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, InformationvsInjustice. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi mate,

I saw your edits on the page Romulus when I was an IP. Would you mind talking about this on the talk page because we have a long conversation on it? Thanks mate.

And thanks for being friendly:)

Cheers

PrinceofFrancia (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fall of Constantinople, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bombard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Barnstar of Tacitus is Stella Horrei Taciti... :) Thx, John... Veryproicelandic (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your query on my talk page – I forgot to alert you though. Kanjuzi (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above translation. Vitomontreal (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Its first recipient thanks you! Haploidavey (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Latin help

Hey! Sorry I'm late in responding to this, been rather busy this summer! Barnstar of Tacitus would probably be Stella honorem Taciti, which roughly translates to "star in honor of Tacitus". I'm not quite sure what horreorum means--the only related word I could find was the verb horreo, which means roughly what you'd expect it to mean. If you've found another translation for it, though, let me know! Amphytrite (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
143	Battle of the Nile (47 BC) (talk)	Add sources
3,311	Mark Antony (talk)	Add sources
1,279	Roman Kingdom (talk)	Add sources
484	Pan-Slavism (talk)	Add sources
80	Sardinia and Corsica (talk)	Add sources
315	Senta Berger (talk)	Add sources
5	L'Assomption River (talk)	Cleanup
177	Contemporary Latin (talk)	Cleanup
129	Vintage Culture (talk)	Cleanup
9,006	San Francisco (talk)	Expand
160	Tokyo Electric Power Company (talk)	Expand
45	Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination (talk)	Expand
95	Roman–Gallic wars (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
553	Nuclear meltdown (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
15	Marcus Octavius (tribune of the plebs 133 BC) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
51	Pacific Northwest College of Art (talk)	Merge
60	Pranami Sampraday (talk)	Merge
22	Portugis (talk)	Merge
186	Ancient Roman technology (talk)	Wikify
3	In re Gateway Learning Corp. (talk)	Wikify
20	Claire McCusker Murray (talk)	Wikify
1	Hendrée E. Jones (talk)	Orphan
2	Andrés Francisco Giles (talk)	Orphan
2	Ahn Il-joo (talk)	Orphan
27	Censorinus (talk)	Stub
42	Masao Yoshida (nuclear engineer) (talk)	Stub
39	Sterope (Pleiad) (talk)	Stub
3	Tienhoven, Stichtse Vecht (talk)	Stub
13	Battle of Camerinum (talk)	Stub
2	Zijderveld (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Aurelius

Will you please comment on the featured article nomination for Marcus Aurelius? The instructions say to indicate if you are a significant contributor to the article before its nomination. Векочел (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Dear InformationvsInjustice, thank you for starting the work on the article on M. Desjardins, which I actually planned to start myself. The problem with organized crime figures is the lack of reliable sources, so it is always hard to find the necessary materials for such article, or alternatively, your article will get tagged with those annoying tags that this article uses mainly one source. You did a great job! Not to speak this as any criticism, I will add in from some of the sources that I have dug up over the course of the past year, which are just different sources from yours-it is that what Wikipedia is all about? Thank you for starting the article, for all your hard work and for inviting me to contribute. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being late in getting started; the demands of work plus illness knocked me for the past couple of days. You really did an excellent job on the article on M. Desjardins, who is a most unusual character-I cannot think of another example of a non-Sicilian rising up so far in the Mafia. Happy Holidays!--A.S. Brown (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A.S. Brown: Yes, his case is pretty rare. I also saw this when I made Réal Simard with Frank Cotroni, however he was a hit man. Feel free to take a look at those as well. Merry Christmas, regard. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Thank you, Vaselineeeeeeee! I will take a look at those pages as well. By the way, the book I was looking at last night, Mafia Inc confirmed that Raynald Desjardins is not related to Andre Desjardins, through I still think that the two men probably share a common ancestor. Merry Christmas! Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, InformationvsInjustice. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 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]

Another barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Great job in writing major content in the proposed article about Raynald Desjardins, User:InformationvsInjustice.

Thanks for asking me and User:Vaselineeeeeeee to collaborate. The article should now be ready for publication (by you, since you did most of the work and came up with the concept for the article).

This is exactly how Wikipedia should work. I would be happy to collaborate with you again. Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi InformationvsInjustice. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, so do check back at WP:PERM/NPR in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate to the talk pages consultation

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

News

The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
{{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
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) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

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 request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and 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)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

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 NPR. There is now also a live queue of 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)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

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)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 812 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome

You thanked me for something in 2017 (thanks log: ) whatever it was, you're welcome. Earlier in '10s I got discouraged with Wikipedia, so the thanks helped, but I doubt I'll ever feel the same as I did about Wikipedia about as when it began... on various articles not always fitting popular knowledge/views, there was so much edit-warring the mediation group gave up so I had to also... still the case, except I'm almost sure I'll be back occasionally/rarely trying to edit only other articles than those. I hope you will also, but a lot of people left in the '10s (including many I knew.)--dchmelik (t|c)

images for commons

Cool images over at the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester article ... is it possible you can move them to Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Elitzur-Vaidman_bomb_tester (perhaps with better file names than "Test illustration" :-P )? --Nanite (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Organised crime newsletter

Hello, InformationvsInjustice.

You are receiving this one-time message because in the past, you have shown immense interest in the articles coming under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime, or you have contributed to these articles substantially.

It is my pleasure to tell you that we starting a semi-annual newsletter, and if you would like to receive this quarterly newsletter, then kindly add your name in list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime/newsletter. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) sign the (guestbook) 19:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 812 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 848 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000^[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.^[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 15633 articles, as of 06:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol \| July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination: MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message

Hi InformationvsInjustice,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol \| May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New pages patrol needs your help!

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello InformationvsInjustice:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1800 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello InformationvsInjustice,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol \| September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] t including another ~6,000 redirects

[2] The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

[a]

[b]