This is an archive of past discussions with User:Governor Sheng. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You can copy and place {{helpme}} with your accompanying question on the bottom of your talk page and someone else will show up shortly to answer your questions here.
Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date
On a final note, you may want to try the new (beta) VisualEditor, check out our weekly newspaper, the Wikipedia Signpost, and join a WikiProject of interest to you. WikiProjects gather editors interested in certain topic areas, providing them with information, tools and a place to discuss the topic in question. . For a list of all WikiProjects, see here. Joining a WikiProject makes the Wikipedia experience much richer! Chris Troutman (talk)19:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Just a question. I am curious as to why you see the need to change the popes and saints from Roman Catholic to Catholic. It appears that the wording was consistent across multiple articles. I fear that we may end up with a mixture. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib)18:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Governor Sheng. You have new messages at Krj373's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please could read the template documentation for Template:Use dmy dates. The template is useful to the editors to quickly know which date format is to be used when adding new dates into an article. It is not appropriate to remove it from articles after making sure that all the dates are in that format.-- Toddy1(talk)20:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar
It is my pleasure to present you with the Writer's Barnstar for your work rewriting Pope Miltiades. Your contributions are excellent and the article is much improved for your efforts. Thank you, keep up the excellent work! Mifter (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Garegin Apresov, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-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.
While I accepted the draft, I also noticed that there are few to no English sources. If you can find sources in English, or provide English translations for the Russian cites on the page, that would be awesome. Thanks for the contribution! KiteinthewindLeave a message!08:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pope Miltiades you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I've always been interested in Sheng Shicai and the Xinjiang clique but have never been able to find any good information on him. I wanted to thank you for all the edits you made to his page. Grngu (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. The only problem with bringing it to GA status is, I am not 100% sure about how exactly the Vatican got out of dept and paid off the loan (this happened around 1870 I think). This aspect would have to be researched more before it could become a GA. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)
Hello. After your edits on the pages with the results of the Croatia national team, there's now a page for each decade, except that all matches from 1940 to 1999 are covered in a single page. Why not split the latter into a separate page for the 1940s plus that 1956 match vs Indonesia, and another one for the 1990s? Not only would this more or less preserve the general decades-based listing pattern, but also that hiatus from 1956 to 1990 is a much more natural boundary than a simple turn of a decade, so it's an appropriate point where a list should end and another should begin. And also, the 1940s-1950s page could then include some background information about the political incarnations of Croatia during that time. What do you think? --Theurgist (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 30
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
Hello, Governor Sheng. 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.
Sorry for not replying. I just saw your message as I was inactive for some time. I have joined the project, and gladly so. Thank you for your invitation. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gostuša, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gornji Gradac (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.)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sheng Shiqi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Governor Sheng, I've been thinking about this article. The major problem I see with it is that it needs a lot of background information to explicate the significance of the death of Sheng Shiqi. However, the article about his brother, Sheng Shicai is far more detailed & provides a very informative window into the politics of China of this period. With far less work that article could easily be made into GA than the one on Sheng Shiqi. Moreover, any additional research required to bring Shicai to GA could be reused to improve the one on Shiqi. I'm happy to work with you further on this article, but IMHO the one on Shicai would render you much more satisfaction -- & in the long run benefit Wikipedia more. -- llywrch (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that you haven't worked on the Sheng Shiqi article for a while, but you haven't been active recently. Do you intend on working further on this article? Or should I close the GA review as failed but without prejudice, & allow you to work on the article at your own speed & resubmit at a future date? (If I don't see a response in a week, I'll go ahead & close the GA review as a fail.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
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.
An article you recently created, Cyryl Lubowidzki, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Cyryl Lubowidzki, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
The article cites "Petrović", "Jolić 2012", "Petrović 1938", "Petrović 1997", "Vrankić 2016" but no such sources are listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi, FYI you are not allowed to promote your own hook to prep. Please be patient and wait for someone else to promote it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
1) Medjugorje experiences a war, Francican friar priests (henceforth "friars") take over dioceses for the imprisoned bishops, with said bishops' permission, so the dioceses aren't lost to war
2) War ends, bishops get out of prison and ask friars to restore the dioceses to them, but friars refuse because they committed child sex abuse and know the victims will come forward if the diocese are restored to the bishops
3) Bishops appeal to the Pope, Pope asks friars to restore dioceses, but friars refuse
4) Pope writes Romanis Pontificibus, ordering the friars to restore the dioceses
5) Friars refuse, now committing schism (refusal to submit to the Pope) and breaking their vow of obedience to the Pope. Schism and vow breaking are sins (but one can be dispensed from a vow by the Pope). One who vows to obey the Pope must obey him as he would the Lord, unless the Pope orders someone to commit sin, in which case, the person is obliged to disobey the Pope (civil disobedience). Also, schismatic Catholic are still subject to the Pope until the Pope says otherwise.
6) Restoring dioceses to bishops is a matter of faith and virtue. By faith, a bishop is a steward of a diocese, as a vicar of Christ, because Christ is the real owner of a diocese, as the head of the Church. Bishops make a vow to obey Christ, which includes being a steward of a diocese. If bishops did not ask friars for dioceses back, they'd be committing sin; but because they did ask, they practiced virtue.
7) Pope excommunicates friars for disobeying him despite their vows. Excommunication means a priest cannot celebrate sacraments, except for a grave reason (a priest may baptize or hear the confession of a dying person). To violate excommunication is a sin.
9) Fr. Vlasic is moved to Medjugorje (as punishment) after he has sex with a nun and she fathers his child (she couldn't hide her pregnancy, so what Vlasic did became known and nun is kicked out of her religious order), Vlasic becomes spiritual director of the parish of Medjugorje. Spiritual directors give moral advice regarding Christian life, such as how one is to treat an apparition.
10) Medjugorje apparitions happen. Vlasic manipulates the visionaries into claiming the Medjugorje apparitions said the friars can celebrate sacraments despite excommunication. Depending on your interpretation, this means the apparitions are either ignorant of the excommunication (Mary cannot err because God speaks through her, and God is perfect), or lied or is approving of the friars' schism (Mary cannot lie or approve of sin because she is sinless, and lying and approval of sin are sins in themselves). The excommunication was not in error, because the friars really did disobey the Pope, so the apparition cannot be calling for civil disobedience.
11) Victims of child sex abuse come forward to civil government, who try and imprison some of the friars
12) Vlasic manipulates visionaries into claiming the apparitions said he (Vlasic) is innocent of having sex with a nun and that the friars are innocent of child sex abuse
I know more about the Medjugorje apparitions than the Affair, mind you. In fact, there's an interesting comparison to be made between Medjugorje and Kibeho. At Kibeho, Mary appeared to some children, who experienced ecstasy during the apparitions. There is video of these ecstasies on Youtube. Youtube also has video of the Medjugorje visionaries experiencing ecstasy during apparitions. However, there's a differnce between the two. At Kibeho, the children show all the signs of ecstasy: rolled back eyes (as if asleep), focus on something invisible in front of them, stiff body movement, and superhuman knowledge (knowing who gave them rosaries, etc.). At Medjugorje, none of these signs appear during the ecstasies. So, in light of this ecstasy comparison and in light of the Affair, it's safe to say the apparitions of Medjugorje are a hoax.
Are you an expert on how a person having a vision of Mary should look or act? No? I didn't think so. Your comments I notice have not one factual reference and so it appears as personal opinion or a leaning which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I have seen people in ecstasy and their eyes are closed. The visionaries all were looking at something invisible in front of them & above them and would be talking with her but no one could hear what they were saying. They are obviously awake and focused on Mary. She is communicating with them. Perhaps the children in Kibeho were not conversing but had a different role. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I just googled the Kibeho visionaries and saw each one in a photograph during their communion. Their eyes were open (not rolled back) looking at something in front of them. I suggest doing real research before making an erroneous claim.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello - Your edits on this page are lacking the name of the book you used, the publisher, year it was written and author. Also you need to use the format for references for a book. Please correct or I will need to revert your edits. Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but the book is mentioned. Under the footnotes, you'll find the name of the author. Once you click on that, it will refer you to the book used. The book is listed under the References/Books chapter. Example: [1]. I hope I explained the issue. --Governor Sheng (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Your recent edits on this page did not include a collaboration with other editors, you added too much wording to your references, your references are not complete per wiki guidelines and there is no way to look them up with only the author listed. I am asking you to revert your edits and bring the changes you want to make to the talk page. I tried to revert your edits all at once but was unsuccessful. If you don't, I will need to delete each edit one by one and take to the talk page. Your choice. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Please, don't give me any ultimatums. You had enough time to make some comments on my edits. You haven't done so for more than a month. You are free to contribute. We can jointly improve the article. All I added is well referenced. What we need to do is to improve the article with my edits included. I repeat, you could leave a comment, and you haven't. Now you want everything deleted. It won't happen, sorry. Not only that, but if you remove my edits, without any explanation at the talk page, I'll report your behaviour to some of the administrators. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alojzije Mišić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seonica.
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Alexandermcnabb, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Radoslav Glavaš, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.
For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dylsss(talkcontribs)13:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The article cites "Škegro 2007" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js');// Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
Hello. I recently noticed you created multiple RfPs ([2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]) without showing the need of these permissions. This is called hat collecting, and is generally frowned upon in the Wikipedia community. If you want a user right, you have to demonstrate and provide rationale for why you need it. ―sportzpikachumy talkcontribs00:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Auopatrolled granted
Hi Governor Sheng, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Miniapolis23:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The case request "Our Lady of Medjugorje", which you were a party to, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline. The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but a permanent link to the declined case request can be accessed here.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yahballaha III you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Governor Sheng. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. 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 encyclopedia. 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. signed, Rosguilltalk22:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello Governor Sheng,
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.
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
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!14:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tomislav Vlašić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 24 sata.
The article Yahballaha III you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yahballaha III for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ante Pavlović (chiropractor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paškal Buconjić you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!14:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!14:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!15:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Governor Sheng! How are you? I see you did some edits on Željko Komšić's article, mainly deleting a supposed rv POV-pushing? Okay, deleting the part where US Ambassador Eric Nelson is mentioned is okay as it's not that important, but deleting Komšić's non-paper that he sent to EU foreign ministers and his reaction to a supposed non-paper sent by Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Janša? Why? It's a pretty important thing that was covered by a lot of domestic and foreign media. And Komšić's opinion, as practicaly one of Bosnia's three presidents, does matter, so why did you think that that was rv POV-pushing? I do hope to get your answer shortly! :) Bakir123 (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 23
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
Third Opinion request for Our Lady of Medjugorje page
Here is the location of the Third Opinion page. I am hoping we can find a neutral, wikipedia expert to help us finish the Our Lady of Medjugorje page. [[8]] Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Did you notice it was deleted by Robert McClenon? He pointed me into other places to ask for help. In that process I found this area. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters [[9]] I read through them and Rosguill seems like a possible fit.(about half way down) Here is his talk page [[10]] Before I ask, I wanted your feedback first. Let's start working as a cooperative team.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 30
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
Hello, I've seen your multiple edits of the "Head-to-head records" section of Croatia national football team. The reason why the old table is good is the fact that the Croatian Football Federation counts the game against USMNT as their first ever international, and since then they have played another 315 games (and the 300th game was the 1–1 draw with Wales on 13 October 2019). However, all the games they played before the aforementioned game cannot be simply ignored so they are listed in a separate table. The reason why the 1945 games are not included is the fact that those games were not exactly international back then when all those teams were from the same nation. I hope this clears it up. Pjesnik21 (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pjesnik21: Thank you very much for responding. I can't make the same conclusion you did there. The Twitter post you linked me to states "300th appearance of the #Croatia national team since independence." From this statement, it is clear they count other games before independence too. I'll direct you to Talk:Croatia national football team. Is it up to the Croatian Football Federation to determine when this independence occurred? Surely, political scientists will disagree that Croatia was independent before 25 June 1991. Regarding you statement what is "international" about an international match, I'll respond that surely Scotland and England count their matches as international, though they're in the same country. I just don't see such a conclusion here. Also, your characterisation of an "official" match is not in accordance with the Glossary of association football terms. Here, an official match ("A" Match) is: [an] "international match for which both associations field their first team". --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Governor Sheng: I think you are confusing the independence of a football federation with the independence of a country. Yes, Croatia was not independent in 1990. However, the Croatian Football Federation was setting foundations for its resurgence with that game, breaking away from the Football Association of Yugoslavia. That way Scotland and England are both independent football nations that have their own associations recognized by FIFA. Therefore, if the CFF counts international games since 17 October 1990, I believe they should be listed that way. Also, your definition of an A match isn't necessarily a definition of an official match. The A team can be fielded in an unofficial match as well. --Pjesnik21 (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pjesnik21: You haven't convinced me with this. Croatia established its football federation back in 1940 and re-established it in 1990. I just don't see your logic here. I think you're making non-existing terms... football independence vs political independence. To me, this makes no sense. If this is what you're believe, then the games played in 1940 are no different than those played in 1990. Regarding CFF's counting, I think you're making a false premise. CFF doesn't count international games since 17 October 1990, but since its first football match vs Switzerland in 1940. [12][13]. Regarding the deffinition of an "official match", even FIFA states it doesn't need to be organised under its auspices: "Official match: a match organised under the auspices of a football organisation for all of the teams or clubs in its sphere of operation; the score has an effect on the rights of participation in other competitions unless the regulations in question stipulate otherwise." [14] I. E., as for FIFA or any other football association, an official match is the one both associations consider to be official. That said, even FIFA recognises that a match between England and Scotland played in 1872, way before FIFA was established, is the first international match. Generally this idea of emphasising matches as "pre-independence" or "post-independence" is just senseless. What if hypothetically, Croatia becames a member of a larger union of states, but keeps it's national team... Should we also add a separate emphasis "post-independence"? --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Governor Sheng: If, hypothetically, Croatia become a member of a larger union of states but keep their national team, then we should not add a separate emphasis since they would be perserving their football independence. The links you posted are not an official source on the Croatia Football Federation's records. This one, however, is, and it shows the USMNT game as their first ever game. All games played before that one are not recognized by the Federation, nor the general public in Croatia in general, with most of them being unaware that those games have ever occurred. Therefore, the games played since 17 October 1990 are recognized by the Federation and should be listed as such. Games played before that date―if noted―should be noted separately. A state and a football association should be kept separate as well. The Federation was already independent and on its own in 1990, before the Parliament declared independence of the Republic. Concerning England and Scotland, as football associations they are independent nations, as states they are united. And concerning their 19th-century games, the sole reason FIFA recognizes them is because FIFA did not exist back then so they recognized them in retrospective. --Pjesnik21 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Croatia
There is no need for such aesthetics that you insist on. This is not how the football box collapsible should be generated. Your edits so far in the articles are not constructive and if you don't stop undoing I will report you. Besides, it makes far too dificult for ordinary editors to make edits after every match.--Sakiv (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Not so. Your edits are not constructive. Instead of working on aesthetics you could add or remove some information. This is how the pages looked like months before you deemed some of its parts as "unnecessary". --Governor Sheng (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
What is the benefit of your additions? What is the significance of these for readers?? You are also not the one who updates the article after every match. The additions were not there when the article 2020-present was created. The articles should look like France national football team results (2000–2019).--Sakiv (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I created some of those pages, while ago (Croatia national football team results (2000–2009)) and added a vast majority of the content to the other ones (which was later split into separate article by other editors [15]). You can see my contribution at each page. The benefit and significance for the readers is they can easily see to what tournament certain matches belong, instead of reading every separate entry, they'll have certain tournaments in different colours, plus the number of matches is also added. There's no rule how the article should look like. --Governor Sheng (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
First of all, creating the original article does not give you the right to determine what future articles should look like. Numbering matches does not give any benefit to the reader and this can be done on the main page as in Belgium and Spain. And coloring the numbers is also redundant. I think we can come to terms.--Sakiv (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Of course creating the original article doesn't give me the right to determine what the future articles should look like. I was answering your question what is my contribution other than aesthetics. What is redundant and what is not is your personal view. Maybe a vote should clear things out? --Governor Sheng (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
On 23 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ivan Štironja, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the new bishop of Kotor in Montenegro, Ivan Štironja, speaks Swahili and served as a missionary in Tanzania? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ivan Štironja. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ivan Štironja), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
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)
The article cites "Gjurić" and "Goluža 2006" but no such sources are listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js');// Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata•320:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Ditto for "Pamučina 1873" in Ali Pasha Rizvanbegović. Really, please, either pay more attention to references (and install the script to help highlight the errors) or stop using short references. Thanks, Renata•300:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
You might try using Twinkle to tag pages for deletion, they provide a space to link the page you want moved so that the patrolling admin can look at the article and do the deletion and move in one action. You might find your CSD requests get a faster response as Wikipedia admins are very familiar with Twinkle and how it tags pages. LizRead!Talk!03:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. WP:CIVIL
Governor Sheng once again here is another uncivil comment copied from your revert. "User Rotten Rose deleted the source in her rampage" Oct 17, 2021
Did you notice that Manannan67 took the post out saying - "rm sentence tagged unsourced since February 2021" Oct 15, 2021 which I agree with.
It appears again that you neglect to even read the reasons I am doing what I am doing. We need to find a civil common ground on this page. It has been over a year now.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Governor Sheng: Red Rose translated into German is rote Rose [[16]] As you know the word rotten means being in a state of putrefaction or decay, as you well know. This is not the first time you have been uncivil. This is a warning. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk20:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Editor Civility Problem
(1) from a post on your talk page in October 2021
"Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. WP:CIVIL Governor Sheng once again here is another uncivil comment copied from your revert. "User Rotten Rose deleted the source in her rampage" Oct 17, 2021 [17] Did you notice that Manannan67 took the post out saying - "rm sentence tagged unsourced since February 2021" Oct 15, 2021 which I agree with. It appears again that you neglect to even read the reasons I am doing what I am doing. We need to find a civil common ground on this page. It has been over a year now.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
(2) Current post title = Crap - This is just bullshiting... Joe likes scat porn. 2/7/22 [18] 2nd warning. I find this offensive and unproductive. I am only open to a (a) civil conversation (b) using wikipedia guidelines as the foundation, not personal opinions. Also reverting first rather than discussing your objection is counter productive and disruptive.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. And nothing happened for 15 months since? If so, we should indeed rename the picture. Btw, it would be useful to have a source to attribute it, though I agree with you that it does indeed look like him. --Dans (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mehmed Kapetanović, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibrahim Pasha.
An article you recently created, Srećko Matko Džaja, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Governor Sheng. At the beginning of March you added some references to Ali Pasha Rizvanbegović. You've only added {{sfn}} templates, but these need a full cite to link too. Do you have the full details of who Gölen 2019, Krešić 2012, and Kapidžić 2001 are? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
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 836 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 847 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)
Disambiguation link notification for June 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diocese of Duvno, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bribir.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Slp1 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Short form references
Hello again Governor Sheng. I'm coming across more and more articles where you've used short form references (eg {{sfn}} and the like), but have not added any cites for these to link to. For instance on the 3rd you added this to Tomislavgrad. I'm concerned that it appears you've added many links like this, all without full cites to link too. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I have noticed this on other pages as well. Here is the one on John Paul II page [[19]] reference #404 and another one on this page reference #22 [[20]]. It looks to me like errors that need to be corrected.Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Governor Sheng. You just did massive edits on Our Lady of Medjugorje with some source called Gontermann 2021 and you used the short form reference and did not add any cites for this link. It needs to be fixed immediately.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested: The refs were added the very same day I've reached the necessary literature (as you can see from my edits from yesterday); regarding @Red Rose 13:, of course I said she cannot expect me to add refs within 24 hrs as there was no intention on my side to keep the non-referenced inserts I added. Governor Sheng (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Governor Sheng. Sorry I had missed the additions. Although that is because both articles still appear in the error list, as "Kapidžić 2001" is still missing from Ali Pasha Rizvanbegović and "Збирка закона и уредаба 1945" from Tomislavgrad. I suggest turning on these errors, if you haven't already. As for Our Lady of Medjugorje I agree that 24 hours is restrictive, but it would be easier for other editors if you added the cites at the same time as the references. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I just checked and these two are not fixed yet. [[21]] reference #404 and another one on this page reference #22 [[22]] When do you plan on fixing these two?Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
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: 18756 articles, as of 06:00, 29 April 2025 (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.
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.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tomislavgrad, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Završje and Drežnica.
Hello fellow Balkan editor, I need your help. In Bosnia and Herzegovina pages in the lede the language it's a mess you can find out Cyrillic Serbian text, Cyrillic Script, Croatian or Bosnian and each page differs drastically. I'm not sure how or what language to keep, should I keep Cyrillic? Should I change the language in the lede based on demographics? If yes some places are heavily mixed. That's what's bothering me and I can't decide. S.G ReDark (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Neither time was there any explanation for this action, which is clearly contrary to WP:NCGN. This last one was practically minutes after I had fixed it again. I'm really getting an incivility vibe from this pattern at this point. Please either pay attention or voice any concerns you may have. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
Hello, Governor Sheng. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Srećko Matko Džaja, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jusuf Barčić until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
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.
NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022
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.
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 Governor Sheng,
New Page Review queue December 2022
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.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
; see Talk:Pope Miltiades for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Filip Benković, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sheng Shiqi for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
; see Talk:Sheng Shiqi for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Leo Petrović at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you I just saw, that you have included in the Bilal Bosnić article, also one of my (co)authored articles. Thanks for that! Regards, Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Barnstars will be awarded.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
