User talk:Josh3580

1938:, explaining why you believe it shouldn't be deleted. I also see where you got quite upset during this recent conflict. Try not to these things personally, although - believe me - I completely understand your frustration. Usually when you are disagreeing with someone, it is about the content, not about the people people involved. Try and keep this in mind. Those templates that get added to articles aren't intended to insult or shame anyone (or any article); editors add those templates to invite other editors to make the article better. Take a step back, clear your mind, then come back more dedicated than ever to improve the content. A person with your passion is a useful resource around here. Of course, there are others just as passionate who may disagree with you. That is the double-edged sword of 664:

edit summary when you make the change. Just changing it without explaining is what caused the red flag. I pick through all of the recent changes throughout the encyclopedia, and I have to be sure that people aren't adding incorrect information. Use a clear edit summary when you make these changes, point to which cited source has the correct information, and state that you are changing it to match the cited source. Your statement about "infidels" not being allowed to have Muslim names is exactly what is NOT appropriate, as you would need to back that kind of statement up with a source. You have to make sure and clearly document this sort of thing. I mean no disrespect, I am just trying to be sure that the correct procedure is followed. Thank you, —

3484:, but I eventually found out that, no matter how impassioned any editor is, the community does a pretty good job at ironing out the messy details as time moves along. If an edit is so controversial that the currently active editors can't agree, the article's talk page invites others to give their opinion. The whole consensus idea was very strange and foreign to me at first, but I must admit, it works pretty darn well on this project. Surrender to consensus. We can all just do our individual part, editing in a way that we feel is correct, and let the community either agree with us or reject us. In all, the consensus seems to turn out the best product. Cheers to the both of you. — 10045: 4216:(YouTube videos are not in that category) that back up their written claims. I have no problem with anyone adding any type of criticism to this article (or any other) as long as it's done correctly. We don't care what your opinion of the topic is, we care what can be verified through sourcing. When the protection expires then everyone is welcome to edit the article again. But repeated insertion of inappropriately worded or sourced material will continue to result in reverts and extended protection. Seriously, it's not that hard. Find an article in the media, paraphrase it, cite it. That's how this encyclopedia is written. 6873: 9903: 6867: 6879: 6885: 2232: 9465: 8851: 8163: 7506: 10053: 9592: 8904: 5619: 8561: 8495: 8425: 8065: 7984: 7934: 7835: 7647: 7410: 6210: 6186: 6083: 6002: 5914: 5834: 5762: 5746: 5692: 5601: 5545: 5486: 9296: 9048: 9024: 8889: 9376: 9472: 5139:

of my claims backed up by evidence. Then this same individual tells you that instead of relying on facts, you have to get more people to agree with you on the talk page, which I did. Then when you ask this same individual why there are have been no changes to the page since they have managed to get more people to agree with them, and the individual replies with the statement of "the consensus is biased as the proposal." Now do you seriously want me to believe that after all of that you are not either

1807:

had to guess, (and it's only a guess) I would assume it has to do with the context of the data. i.e.: If a day and month were included, I think it would have left it as "Date" instead of "Year." On the other hand, that could be a completely incorrect assumption on my part. Their algorithm is a bit nebulous to me, since (like everything around here) it is constantly evolving. I try to take AWBs recommendations, look at the proposed diff, and apply them where they appear to be constructive changes. —

9507: 9729: 2134: 1656: 9780: 147: 5504: 8896: 1432: 9236: 6861: 2913: 9574: 407: 9031: 8858: 8992: 7488: 6069: 5472: 3438:

and validate them. Many "firsts" occur every day (I ate breakfast on March 28, 2014 for the first time ever today!), but not all such events have real significance and historical context. If this Cossack Congress is as important and significant as the participants claim, then there should be other, neutral third parties who agree and explain what is and is not significant about it. You as an editor do not count as such an impartial third party.

3154:

Just stating that it is untrue with no source, or challenging existing sources, will most likely trigger a filter just as happened here. I had to look 16 edits back to find where the unsourced addition on the Rams occurred, and you are now unhappy with THAT revert. I found the next version that had no team reference. In the future, do your own research if you want to change things. Don't just try to pick a fight. I'm trying to help here, too. —

6217: 7386: 7273: 6916: 4336:

It could be argued that both articles are equally appropriate, since the term "queerplatonic" simply puts both "queer" and "platonic" together. I am not in any way claiming that you are wrong or incorrect, just that the guidelines are specific about how the process works. Re-reverting once another editor has disputed your edit is not the way to move forward, however. What I would recommend, is that you use the next step of the

9055: 10174: 10106: 9983: 9841: 9664: 9411: 9174: 8933: 4013: 3985: 423: 641:, and not acceptable as a basis for information in an encyclopedia. Not to mention the fact that people don't choose their own names under normal circumstances. Besides, it's the fact that you are changing articles en masse, without citing sources, that makes this look like vandalism, and you haven't really convinced me that you are interested in adhering to the policies I have referred you to. — 9943: 3883: 7604: 1726: 2982:). But just as general information, adding information is what requires a source, not removing it - especially if the information being removed doesn't have a source. Of course if you have found yourself in a disagreement with another editor, the article's talk page would be where you would want to hammer out your differences. There, everyone can come to a 3387:" in your head?) The original vandal did not add the tag in good faith; he simply replaced the current article with another one that had already been tagged for notability. But if you think the template is warranted, then that's good enough for me. There's always room for debate when dealing with Knowledge's vague guidelines. 5242:

did not include the word "Iranic". Multiple sources have been cited to support the proposal which was adopted. As far as undue weight? You make a reasonable argument. But your edits must pass the consensus test. At this time, it seems that the current lead was considered the most fair, as it included

5059:

somewhat disagree with you in this discussion? If I were paid to contribute, would I be trying to argue that, as you quoted me, "The current consensus is biased, as is this proposal. We should, within reason, be inclusive and representative of the sources."? I really am sorry that we disagree on this

4335:

policies - by requiring well-documented secondary sources for any relatively recently coined phrase, the encyclopedia continues to be manageable and readable. The queer article makes the point quite well that the addition of this term to a word connotes the opposite of the following "normative" word.

3437:

I think you're confused by what we mean by "impartial" and "secondary" sources. I'm not doubting the good faith of the editor, but the addition is wholly unsuited for wikipedia. We need reliable, secondary sources (reputable news coverage, historian's analysis) to interpret the significance of events

3174:

I never tried to pick a fight. I just changed "St. Louis Rams" to "Free Agent". I suppose in the future if I spot misinformation I will simply source it in the edit description... is that the proper way to do things? I already did my research. I knew Kenny Britt was a free agent. I changed it. Why do

3018:

Thank you so much for contributing. To answer your questions... 1) I empathize with the problem of sources, but it is still required. 2) Why shouldn't I use Huggle for vandalism prevention? It seems to serve me quite well. 3) Your experience has nothing to do with this, it is the source that matters.

2441:

So because other people added things that are unsourced, you should be able to do the same? That's not how it works. If you look at the page history, I removed quite a few unsourced additions, not just yours. Find extensive coverage of Zoogle Media, and cite it, and it can be included. It's as simple

738:

source. I hope I didn't give the impression that I was passing any judgement on her or her work, that had nothing to do with my reversions. That was the source that was cited, and it's just not a source to base encyclopedic content on, you know? Thank you for seeing where I was coming from, and thank

729:

Thank you. You seem to see exactly where I was coming from here. It was POV-pushing, plain and simple. Think how messy political articles would become if we included every vote they have ever made? This was more of the issue I had with the edits, although it is still true that her blog is not quite a

663:

Look, I understand and appreciate what you are trying to do. I don't disagree with your purpose, as we all want Knowledge to contain correct information. However, you didn't explain any of this when you made the edits. If the source states the opposite of what is in the article, then put that in your

289:

is supposed to automatically skip any contractions in quotes. The examples you gave had either no quote marks, or quotes that spanned across multiple paragraphs, which must have confused the algorithm. I apologize for those mistakes, that was negligence on my part for not paying closer attention as I

9349:

If you are no longer very active on Knowledge 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

9111:

7090:

have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not

5237:

I fully appreciate where you are coming from. In the discussions on this article, I have always said that both sides have completely valid points. As it stands, however, there was an in-depth discussion on this topic, with many people contributing, some who shared your view, but the proposed lead by

4619:

At first blush, it appeared that the citation supporting the other point of view was removed simply because you didn't agree with it. I now see that I was looking at the wrong citation. Still, the version of the article that I reverted to seems to make it quite clear that this isn't a "Nobel Prize",

4380:

sources are required to make changes to assertions of fact. I didn't intend to give you the impression that your were incorrect. However, you did not explain your change with an edit summary when you made it, nor did you cite a source for your change. The content that you deleted actually did cite a

3792:

is a very experienced user, with whom I have dealt with many times during my work with Knowledge. I assure you, he wasn't out to get you, although only he can speak to his exact reason for warning you as he did. There are so many bad actors out there performing bad-faith edits, that, on the surface,

3730:

I don't seem to remember threatening violence, but perhaps I can explain why you received a strongly worded warning template. The way that warning templates work in Knowledge is that as your warning level increases, the language becomes a bit stronger each time. The Level 4 warning that you received

3327:

is hardly trivial – and there are two more reviews from reliable sources besides that. I admit that I had a bit of trouble tracking down enough sources to make a case for notability, but if it went to AfD right now, I'm pretty sure it would be kept. Most people don't even require that many sources

3322:

I agree that it's nice to have a civil conversation with someone on a talk page. I've become quite tired of sarcastic teenagers, which makes me wonder if maybe everyone was right about me back when I was teenager. Anyway, sure, if we were talking about trivial mentions you'd have a good point, but

701:

must be cited for any edits, but I don't always see old edits. I honestly believe that your edits were most likely correct, but that doesn't change the fact that you still have to cite a source in the article. I apologize if I upset you originally, this has nothing to do with you or I, but about the

6970:

Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins

5138:

Name one time where I have ignored them. Show me right now, give me a link. I have replied to all of your accusations, and I have countered all of your false claims effectively. You are seriously embarrassing yourself. Do you seriously expect me to believe that some random individual is denying all

3819:

will explain what issues they have with your edits. If you have a question about their criticism, ask them, just as you did with me. Take their criticisms and responses into account, and move forward. I honestly appreciate your willingness to discuss this incident. Many editors choose not to do so,

3153:

Done. I honestly couldn't care less about your funding, that is a donation issue, and is between you and the foundation. As far as this edit, you are absolutely correct. In the future, if you remove unsourced information, make sure it is clear in your edit summary that the information is unsourced.

1806:

Hey there! I am definitely not an expert by any means as to AWB's algorithms. But if AWB's recommendation for an edit seems to make sense to me over all, I hit save. In the case of this edit... When combined with the other minor changes made in that edit, it appeared to be a constructive edit. If I

6743:

has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do

3199:

I'm sorry if I came across that way. Since WP is publicly editable, people often add things for the hell of it which are unexplained and incorrect. The truth is, the answer to your question is even more simple than you posit. If you are removing dubious, unsourced information, just remove it (like

4051:

policies. In your edit, you did not simply state facts from your sources, you included quite a bit of your own opinion as well. Words such as "outrageous", "biased", "illegal prison terms", giving your own "conclusion", and accusing other editors of "destroying" the article are all inappropriate.

2077:

You are welcome. BTW and FYI, I've also reverted a deletion of an appropriately referenced statement (made by the candidate who is leading all opinion polls in India to be the next Indian PM) regarding his views on the case. He made the statement during talks with the US Ambassador so that the US

9494:

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,

8114:

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

2105:

article, and removed a reference in . I did not fact-check your numerical value changes, they may very well be correct. However, you did remove a valid source without explanation. That is why you received the message that you did. If you had a reason to remove that reference, please explain your

3126:

Ok then, so reverse the edit who put his team as the Rams when they had no proof, not my edit. Hell, the first line on his page says he is a FREE AGENT. All I changed as the Infobox to correspond with the information that was ALREADY ON THE ARTICLE. If Knowledge is really so nazi I guess I will

5776:

Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be

3401:

I'll tell you what, my friend... You and your Kenny Loggins reference have convinced me. Seriously, though... I suppose I was trying to reason and glean SOME good-faith from the other editor's changes, but I think you are correct in how the entire edit was not in good faith. I'm restoring the

562:

Hello. Deleting referenced content without discussion and consensus on the article's talk page is anything but objective, it is unconstructive. If you feel that the citations are not reliable, by all means start a discussion on the article's talk page, but don't unilaterally remove referenced

6974:

Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active

2692:

This is an encyclopedia. It is not the place to air your grievances. If there is extensive coverage regarding some controversy, by all means cite your source and include it. Your edit, however, was making negative assertions of the company in the article body, which is a violation of

7006:

will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial

3840:

Thanks for particularly the message above. I needed it badly. I ain't naive if that's what you're asking, but I hate bullies more. I had my fair share in dealing with them. I have moved on. But then again I needed to discuss with you. Thanks agian. This help is much appreciated.

4670:

It just seems appropriate to explain both that it was not a prize created by Nobel himself, but that it is still sanctioned by the Nobel Foundation. I hope this explains my reversion. Thank you, both for your contributions, and for your desire to make the article as accurate as

4741:. We need people, like you, who want Knowledge to be as correct as possible. However, this is an open project, and it's not just your knowledge that counts. It's your knowledge and views, taken into account with everyone else's knowledge and views. I honestly hope this helps. — 995:

Also, I see that you have removed other warnings - that is perfectly acceptable. These messages are to inform you, not notify other users about the history. You are free to remove things from your talk page that you don't want on there, as everything is logged in the page edit

938: 628:

Actually, I haven't cited any sources, because I am not making changes to the article content. You are the one making the changes, and therefore the burden of proof lies with you as the contributing editor. If you feel like information is incorrect on a specific article, find

3465:

mentality here (and people, who claim to read other people's mentality off the internet, a bit worry me :-). I am fine/cool with whatever Josh3580 has decided. I just found your editorial activities a bit more POV than those of the original poster. Have a wonderful day :-)

4326:

As far as "queerplatonic" not being listed in the "queer" article, it would be impossible to list all possible terms that include the word "queer" in its article. That article would become ridiculously long very quickly, just by naming the terms. That is the purpose of the

4340:, and begin a discussion on either article's talk page, gaining a consensus with other editors for the best way to include an explanation of this term. I fear that it will be an uphill battle without secondary sources, however, because of how the guidelines are laid out. — 497:

You must have laughed a bit I thought. I thought I might make your job as a page patroler a bit funnier seeing as though its the most tedious,boring,saddest and suicide enducing 'job' in the world and its people like me that keep you in this line of work. Love you!! xxxx

7222:: Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. 7098:

If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear

8532: 4458:

policy. If the user continues, they can be reported for violating the policy. Also, while your actions are obviously warranted, please be careful that an admin doesn't feel that you are violating the policy as well. I'll try and keep an eye on the article for a

7609: 7606: 7605: 3815:, I often find myself undoing edits that I actually agree with, because of the way the guidelines are laid out. When you are confronted, don't take it personally. Try and figure out what the other editor thinks you are doing wrong. Usually, editors acting in 5819:

has been marked as historical. Knowledge talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it

4381:

source, so the assumption is that the former statement was correct, since you removed properly sourced comment without explanation or citation. If you feel that this information is completely incorrect, you should discuss the discrepancy on the article's

7610: 7435: 7419: 7334:

are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to

7611: 3175:

I have to justify it to you? Btw, it's not that I was unhappy with your revert. It was that your edit, a revert, made the page less accurate than it was before. This is against the spirit of wikipedia. You are the one who "picked a fight" so to speak.

4732:

quite difficult to gain a consensus; I know that - all too well. Nonetheless, that is the only way to change content to match your views - you have to get other editors to agree with you. You haven't even tried to discuss or gain a consensus on the

6767:

There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the

4703:

Making an argument to me is the wrong path to take. As I explained to you before, I don't doubt your correctness. I think you are most likely correct in your views. However, correctness is not what is at issue here. The issue is simply a lack of

3224:

Okay, I get you. I will do this in the future. Sorry for being unclear - it's just frustrating to try to help and then have it reverted every 5 minutes, haha. Thanks for the help, I did not mean to be a burden... just correct an obvious mistake.

1258:

Oh, gosh. You are right. On this drug-related article, I should have left your contribution which stated, "This really is a bitch! shes in my head! and i think shes on my computure i got a key logger. peace deleted bitch!" How constructive of

1227:

Oh, the 2,222 figure seems totally legit. Please add it back, and put in your edit summary that you are updating the stat based on the updated source. It was the "these classes teach users..." sentence that was unsourced. I apologize for the

5323:

I don't see any information in the article that could be considered "personal", it all looks biographical to me. Permission from the subject is not required for an article to be created. Besides, I am not authorized to delete pages, only an

4779:. Stop trying to convince me. I have already said that your position seems reasonable, and most likely correct. But this is apparently a long-standing debate on this article, and the consensus is of the opposite view. Do your convincing on 702:

policies that the community has established. If I had been online when the editor entered "Buddhism," and they didn't cite a source, I would have reverted them as well. Thank you for keeping the dialogue open, I really do appreciate it. —

7144:

is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at

1778:

Then an Administrator will review the page, and they will delete it if appropriate. In the future, be sure you leave a detailed edit summary. Simply blanking a page with no explanation at all is usually construed as vandalism. Hope this

3449:

mentality here. I'd suggest stepping back and viewing the whole thing for what it really is: an ultimately largely meaningless squabble about a small amount of text on a single webpage on a large site in a much larger internet. Cheers.

8134:

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

5583: 3350:

standards, but I did not think that the article should be deleted outright. That's why I added this improvement tag, instead of an AFD or CSD tag. I just wanted to invite any other editors to improve what I saw as a weakness in the

6127:

A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak'

2662:

Is it that you feel like my "whitespace edits" are inconsequential? It would be the first time out of many similar edits where that issue was raised with me, but I could see that point. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you are talking

6964: 3293:

That is an awesome question! With some of the folks editing around here, I am pleased to see such a well considered observation. The number of sources are not all that make a film notable, it is the content of those sources. The

8539: 7608: 7468: 6533:

is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Knowledge and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the

7342:

to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the

6251:

will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a

4958:, it was about the market for wireless chargers, which would be better suited for a page talking about wireless chargers in general. Either way, I appreciate the feedback, and feel free to keep me accountable. Thanks again. -- 4371:

There actually is a limit to this rule, which you yourself have inadvertently run into in this instance: Editors cannot and change information to match their point of view, without the change being based on a specific source.

3247:

I know what you mean, and I really do apologize for making things difficult. It's hard to divine what someone else is trying to accomplish sometimes. Thank you again for trying to make things better around here, that's a rare

472:

Please cite your sources if your edit contained a valid fact. The phrase "lego structure turtle building syndrome", as well as "lego building turtle disease" both bring up zero results in Google. Dubious at best, vandalism at

8459: 8031:

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

7212:: Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): 2200:

It's no problem at all, friend. Keep learning the ropes around here, keep making constructive edits, and you'll have all the details and policies down in no time, and will find yourself a veteran editor before you even know

7712: 4612: 6985:

Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the

5574: 2790: 6501:

While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the

2990:

if there is some kind of argument. If there is a specific article or edit of mine that you would like clarified, feel free to leave me a message with the details, and I would be happy to review it. Cheers, and happy

7205:

into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information

5978:

Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on

7796:. 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. 9495:

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.

7050: 5051:, that I have been randomly paid to contribute to this single article? Is there some sort of pattern to my contributions that makes you think that I am some sort of paid shill, or is it simply the fact that I and 7454:

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

2516:

GREAT question. Actually there's no way to have a private conversation, it's all public here. But let me try to explain... What is needed here is 3rd party sources which simply COVER the company. It needs to be

7248:

to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

3771:) What I think is, there are some purist out there and if someone like me tries to do a little something, They think that the world is falling apart. But that ain't the case. I appreciate your work. Good luck. 5532: 1545:

Again, the veracity of your edits is not at issue. It is the fact that you are basically referencing yourself as a source. Just check through those policies I linked for you, they lay out all of the details. —

5071:

and completely out of line, especially being fresh off of a block. I am only trying to engage in discussion, and I have not accused you of anything, I have tried to only discuss the content of this article. —

1400:

to play around with, if you want. Also, the signature you are using is pointing to the wrong place. Knowledge will create this for you automatically if you add four tildes at the end of your post, like this:

1178:

with other editors. Of course, it would definitely be much better than external links to the conferences' websites. It's doubtful, but there may possibly be someone out there who would push back based on the

7048:

predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's

3685:

There was a cited source immediately after the figure, and none of the sales figures you inserted appeared in the cited source. If you decide to update sales figures in the future, please do so based on the

1929:

is a tricky concept. It seems to work really well for governing content, but it does cause arguments from time to time. If an article was tagged for deletion, and it does not qualify for deletion under the

3610:

Multisite support - you can now log in to unlimited number of wikis in 1 huggle session and get a huge queue of all edits made to these wikis. This is good for smaller projects which gets overlooked often.

7035: 4241:

article. You were not simply linking it to that article because it was a more appropriate article, you were linking to a section that you previously created which has since been removed according to the

7700: 3127:

withdraw my funding as I currently pay $ 20 / month as a donation to the site. I'm sorry for making an edit to a page that was obviously contradictory and incorrect. I will never do it again. /sarcasm.

1572:

The problem was that you listed a link to where the product was available as a reference. This is not a reference. Perhaps if the network issued a press release about starting the show, that might be a

7732: 7704: 3046:

That's wonderful that you are trying to make sure that the information is correct. However, please cite your source in the article, not on my talk page. Readers of Knowledge should be able to easily

2106:

reasoning in the future, using the edit summary field, so other editors understand why you took the action that you did. Thank you for contributing, sorry again for any confusion I may have caused. —

6220:

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

1964:

No. I don't want your password. You shouldn't offer, as some people with malintent could use your account to screw you. Can you copy-paste the message here? I'd be happy to interpret it for you. —

3019:

The source you cited says that the "Hao river" is a "historical moat," so it is not an appropriate reference for this change. I would guess that you are correct, but a source is still required. —

6815:

Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.

2833:

Your tone is a bit harsh, perhaps even uncivil, but I am always open to constructive criticism. What edit or edits are you are referring to? I'll be happy to review them, if you clarify a bit. —

1163: 690:

that I watch. You see, I get a list of all edits to Knowledge as they happen, and if any of those edits are not supported by properly sourced information or otherwise explained, I undo them.

10199: 7086:

Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they

5655: 2769:

for any of your contributions. I actually believe that your edits were correct and accurate, but you have to cite a source to make those kinds of changes. Hope this clears things up some. —

8962: 7728: 3098:

You are simply incorrect there. The editor making changes is the one with the burden of proof. If what is currently written is incorrect, then change it, and cite your source. Please see

10008: 9866: 9439: 7742: 1738:

Hi there! I'd like to contest the continued reversion of clean-ups on this page by the user , which are both constructive and necessary to promote the integrity of Knowledge's content.

6155:

candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.

2974:

I'm sorry, to which article are you referring? You aren't logged in, so all I see is your current IP address in your signature above, and I don't see that I have reverted any edits by

760: 9541:

If you are no longer very active on Knowledge 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

369:

database, so that false positives can be identified and reported. I'm not sure how else to tag the edits, other than just typing "clean up," which is much less descriptive and robust.

7607: 8046:. 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. 9199: 9005: 6494: 6243:

progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

10131: 9689: 7815:– 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. 3445:

And no, Josh3580 is not me, but the identity of the editor making the change should have no affect on your acceptance or recognition of that change. You seem to be carrying a

1644: 1446:

Hey Josh. I see you've made a number of constructive edits on Knowledge. Therefore, that simply constitutes a barnstar. 'Nuff said. Hehe, no really, I think you deserve this.

7170:

provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the

3811:

model can be nebulous and hard to follow, even for me. The guidelines and their associated discussions are open to being reinterpreted and changed at any and all times. As a

2468:

explains the policy in detail. Please understand, I have nothing against the company being listed, but at the same time, I don't make the rules, the community adopts them by

6749:

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

4496: 3204:

information, that's when you need to cite a source. Again, your edit was correct, your explanation was the issue. And again, I'm sorry if I came across as confrontational. —

602:

source for all of the articles you have changed from "Buddhist" to "Muslim." Making such changes en masse to a vast number of articles without citing a source appears to be

8042:

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

6806:

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

5782:

Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to

5645: 3578:

I apologize, I looked at that edit completely backwards. You are absolutely correct. I am removing the warning that I put on your talk page. Sorry again for the trouble. —

7449:

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

786:, and it inserts Knowledge's standard templates. I have to physically click each edit I make, but no, I do not have to type the messages in each time. Hope this helps, — 4611: 1991:

First, your caps lock is stuck on - this seems indicative of your level of due diligence. I assume you are snidely responding to the warning you received after making

1609:. I would tend to allow it myself, if you made it clear in your edit summary that you were including an external link to the network that premiered the show. However, 7977: 7708: 5679: 1761: 1691:

Your change may be correct. However, if it's controversial, as I assume it is (if it's "under a big debating"), the proper thing to do is leave it as it is, until a

1063:

Thank you for asking, that's a very interesting question. It may seem counterintuitive, but since Knowledge can be edited by anyone at any time, is not considered a

461: 6027:

Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see

5940:. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today! 4212:

something rather than simply repeat what the sources say (but since they're using primary sources, that will be difficult, see how that works?). What they need are

3926:

guideline if you need to know exactly how to properly cite your source. Any time you add information with no source, it may be reverted by another editor under the

10166: 7073: 8525: 8473: 2874:

Interesting. I don't seem to remember calling you any sort of name. Maybe you want to clarify that? I seem to remember trying to work with you. Perhaps I need to

9276: 8945: 8875: 7317: 7309: 6762:: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing. 5665: 5425: 7339: 5792:

has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

9423: 9403: 7461: 6522: 2254: 7905: 7635: 7033:

now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the

4171: 3226: 3183: 3082: 2164:

Actually I completely got your point. I explained in my edit summary, but I should have put it on your talk page as well. The issue was that it was actually

5179: 10211: 10143: 10076: 10020: 9927: 9878: 9806: 9764: 9704: 9634: 9549: 9451: 9354: 9211: 9116: 8974: 7809:– 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. 6830: 6544: 5380: 5192: 3674: 2686: 2361: 2311: 1328: 8095:

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.

3922:

That is not objectionable at all, and I appreciate your contribution. Just be sure that you include your source when you add factual information. See the

7927: 3767:, I tried to put the box office section above the critical reception, which is the case for most of the film articles. And the user went cuckoo over it ( 3604: 3302:

process on your side. A third editor can remove that tag if they do not agree with the classification. Thanks again, for being diligent and thoughtful. —

801: 723: 9485:

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.

9279:. 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. 7749: 10219: 9815: 9676: 9362: 8448: 7871: 7696: 6645: 6358: 5318: 4858: 3620: 9957: 7008: 5500:

We now have 822 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

3741:, automatically chooses the next highest level warning template, which is why you received the warning that you did. I apologize for any confusion. — 2936: 2919: 2095: 1935: 4490: 10151: 8151: 8056: 7059: 6843: 6556: 6507: 4728:. It's not a matter of finding "a group" of friends, it is a matter of finding agreement amongst all of the editors who care enough to comment. It 443: 7660: 3857:

You are no more naive than I. I just meant that I understand (so very well) how frustrating it is to butt heads with another editor, and with the

1639: 9936: 9696:

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.

7440:, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is 6691: 6404: 5461: 3514: 7738: 6469:

Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator

5445: 5251:, with what you believe is correct, and once you gain a consensus of other editors which overrides the result of the RFC and current consensus, 9962: 9388: 9272: 8486: 7017: 6696: 6409: 6140: 6019: 5961: 5870: 5847:

pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

5783: 5773:

pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

4923:

sourced, so another editor may quarrel with you, but the lack of an edit summary is the reason I reverted your edit. Thanks for contributing! —

3641: 2853:

I was going to help but seeing as you want to call me names, I don't think I'll bother. People like you make Knowledge the worst place to be.

2622: 9820: 7494: 7371: 6015:

pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.

5927:

pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.

5672: 5310: 5100: 5042: 4820: 4043: 3896: 3876: 3852: 3835: 3782: 3756: 3725: 3709: 1755:

You need to explain so in your edit summary. It looks like you weren't logged in when you created the page, as the page creator is listed as

3475: 1831:. I kept trying to sort it out and got red links so I gave up knowing someone/bot would come along and make it behave. Have a good evening. 9039: 7258: 6722: 6435: 4474: 4225: 3383:

reviews is enough is up for grabs, but I think that the other two sources push it into a much safer zone. (Is it just me or did you hear "

7850:

Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

6456:

users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the

4027: 3997: 3417: 3396: 3370: 3341: 3317: 2712: 1857: 1837: 1822: 9643: 9626:

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

8982: 6602: 6315: 3981:

is accessible to other users, you may experiment as much as you wish, but why would you not wish to reveal the contents in your sandbox?

2087: 4900: 4686: 4521: 3593: 3006: 2893: 2868: 2848: 2784: 2601: 2587: 2121: 2010: 9739: 9606: 9521: 9153: 7480: 7235: 6626: 6339: 6061: 5732: 5400: 5212: 3951: 3679: 3499: 3034: 2752: 2548: 2509: 2487: 2457: 2434: 1274: 1243: 946: 836:)... Skynet is here to stay! Reminds me of the insurance "robo-calls" in recent news... Reporter: "Say, 'I am not a robot'." Robot: "I 717: 679: 656: 621: 73: 6963:

which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at

4355: 4321: 4299: 4269: 4197: 4079: 3666: 2521:

enough to merit its own article to be listed (even if the article doesn't exist at this time). The fact that the company is a part of

2140: 2133: 2041: 1710: 1368: 1101: 1078:

for the official explanation. Your best bet is to cite a book or news article, and you can find more information on how to do that at

1057: 990: 823: 754: 546: 513: 488: 378:

Thank you so much for your feedback. It is always helpful to take a fresh look at things! I will pay closer attention in the future. -

10085: 10069: 10028: 9920: 9799: 9757: 9620: 9535: 9480:

There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".

9332: 9219: 9094: 8761: 8092:

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.

6901: 6824:

has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

6168: 6051: 5984: 5896: 5812: 5738: 5684: 5593: 5347: 4783:. That is where you can have an impact. Explain your position, and try to get other editors to agree with your point of view. Again, 4568: 4047:, other than a YouTube link, it wasn't an issue of sourcing. As I stated in my message to you, Knowledge has very carefully laid out 2821: 2560:

Sorry, no dice. The account was created within the last 24 hours, it simply doesn't qualify per the community adopted standards. See

2216: 1510: 1212: 3861:, it can easily become that much more frustrating. I'm heading to bed myself, now. I hope you have a great day, and happy editing! — 2962: 1979: 1957: 1794: 1773:{{db-g7|rationale=I wasn't logged in when I created the page, but I am the page creator, and I would like to request deletion.~~~~}} 9144:

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

8605: 7475:

which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

7149:. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities. 6561: 6274: 6178: 5360: 3562: 3540: 2746: 2047: 1913: 393: 6585: 6298: 5297: 5270: 5109:

to weigh in, so that both of our concerns can be taken into account. If you are correct, then I will suffer the admin's censure. —

4440: 3945: 3263: 3242: 3219: 3169: 3121: 2678: 2400: 2346: 1827:

That makes total sense, thanks. I didn't realize I didn't have the full publication info. Thanks, also, on fixing the underscores

1560: 1538: 1318: 1298: 1011: 531:

my time. My patrolling is at my leisure. You and I don't know each other at all, so let's keep our discussions to article content.

271: 7918: 7711:

for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (

6096:

pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.

5537: 5022: 5001: 4967: 4938: 4605: 2827: 2657: 2068: 9263:

will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

5197:

I don't completely understand your question. It doesn't appear that you are logged in to an account. What exactly is going on? —

5163: 5124: 5086: 4979:

Keep it up, my friend. You are trying to improve things; I get that, and support it. I just wanted to warn you about how tricky

4852: 4806: 4756: 4412: 3968:

If the sandbox is only accessible to me then how come other editors know the contents in there if I choose not to reveal them ?;

2246: 1628: 1598: 8764: 6075: 5994: 5906: 5826: 5816: 5353: 4986:

be, when all of the other editors are involved. Thank you for hearing me, and being receptive to my input. Again, keep it up. —

4825:- Thank you for starting the discussion there. I'm sorry for the bold and caps earlier, but I felt like I was repeating myself 1523:

policies. Making edits about yourself, especially unsourced edits, is strongly discouraged and can be challenged and removed. —

466: 245: 9271:

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at

8813: 8518: 8416: 7681:

tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Knowledge pages still require attribution per

1828: 1499: 8608: 7912: 7209: 6848: 3927: 3803: 2079: 79: 38: 8880: 2295: 578: 9953: 9773: 8657: 8466: 6839: 6552: 5754: 5478: 5456: 3191: 3090: 2975: 2927: 2860: 2614: 2593: 1934:, then the administrator who reviews the request will not delete the page. It does help if you contest the deletion in the 1374: 1218: 1165: 849: 10210: