User talk:Usedtobecool/Archive 10

3940:, you expressed your opinion as an editor on an ongoing content dispute, telling Persianwise that they maybe correct but their argument was logically fallacious. This was the point you became involved in the dispute. You followed that up with more comments and went on to edit the article pertaining to the same dispute, firmly establishing yourself as an editor of the article with opinions on substantive, perhaps even controversial, issues. In my opinion, at that point, it stopped being debatable whether you're involved. Although the literal policy does not explicitly say it, the norm is that an admin, with regard to every article, has to choose between being an editor and an admin. Once the admin takes on the role of editor, they can't go back to adminning on that article. This is so that all editors can be on equal footing, and no one is intimidated. It's so that everyone can have confidence on objectivity and impartiality of the admin administering an article or a dispute. And it is so that a bad-faith admin is not able to get rid of editors they don't like from articles they are trying to OWN. As such, there does not even need to be a dispute or controversy for an admin to be INVOLVED wrt. an article. Anyway, at that point, you were INVOLVED wrt. the article but not Persianwise. You could not sanction Persianwise wrt. their editing of that article anymore, but if you encountered them disrupting some other article some other time, you could sanction them as an uninvolved admin. What followed made you involved with respect to Persianwise as well, and so now you can not ever anywhere sanction Persianwise without violating INVOLVED. 5699:'s reviewing instructions similarly emphasizes notability. Absent a formal consensus, these official-looking things add up, no matter the actual number of subscribers to the philosophy.I did check out discord, recently. It was not for me. I am a bit concerned that we may be creating consensus offwiki. And I am concerned we have too many offwiki ingroups that may affect internal dynamics of the project, in social, policy and content issues, in ways that are not always readily apparent to those of us that prefer to keep everything on the record onwiki. I have similar concerns with IRC for example, or even WMF organisations that emphasise offwiki socialisation and activisim. But I couldn't speak to the specifics. I again come back to a lack of user-friendly mechanism onwiki for collaborations between reviewers. In the short time I was at discord, I saw overwhelmingly, reviewers discussing what should be done with individual cases. It's the kind of discussion that should be had onwiki, and the project needs to do a better job of making people comfortable admitting ignorance.I am wary of putting any question project-wide. It's a balance between keeping a group such as NPP grounded, and having people who know nothing about the realities of this side of the project have undue influence on how it works. People who don't know the work are more likely to hand down unrealistic demands. It's hard to say how it will turn out. But I think we may have no choice but to find out soon. Regards! 2216:, thanks for reaching out! I don't consider notability a sufficient reason to keep spam (except when it would take only a few edits to make the article work). And, in my experience, neither do most admins. But few admins do routinely decline CSDs when they see a topic could be notable even when the criteria are met. And that's fine too, as far as I know; CSDs often allow for that interpretation. The reason I don't subscribe to that, for one, is that draftspace is routinely used as a webhost for advertisements because of the leniency afforded there.In this case, I tagged it because it does need to be fundamentally rewritten so much so that starting from scratch may be preferable to (and certainly would be no worse than) trying to fix it. The problem isn't just how it's written, but what's written and what's not, and of course the quality of sources. And it certainly is UPE. Asking the contributor to improve it instead of rewriting it from scratch, in my opinion, will mislead the contributor as to the extent of the problem and our tolerance for spam.I do NPP, AFC and patrol the "Nepal" space. AFC reviewers generally don't evaluate sources included with spam, because the AFC script allows for the much lower effort "The submission reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article" decline. As for CSDing after, I have CSDed drafts left by other reviewers with just a decline. And other reviewers have CSDed drafts I had left with just a decline. Regards! 4375:

Something common could just be a problem that's not as egregious as other problems that need to be urgently fixed. I removed it because I noticed it while I was there to remove some other thing. If you had reverted me but not come here, I likely would have done nothing about it. So, I would recommend not stressing about it. That said, I would be interested to know what you learn.Sources do say it when it warrants saying, for example when I Ctrl+F "known for" in the link you gave, I see another person being introduced in that manner. So, when we don't have sources doing it, there's no reason to jump the gun. There's also the question of whether it is accurate. "Best known for" implies that a person is known for other things as well, which is hardly the case with Fridman. He is almost "only known for" the podcast and so, "known for" would perhaps be more accurate than "best known for". Better to not get into all that stuff at all. We are supposed to report bare facts, and the fact is, he is a "computer scientist" who has a podcast. We don't need to say that's what he is best known for because the fact that it is mentioned in the lead sentence of his Knowledge article says exactly just that. If it were up to me, we would not even say that he's a computer scientist in the lead sentence because people know that he's a computer scientist only because they know him from his podcast. He's not independently notable as a computer scientist.

1237:, thank you for reaching out. I am glad to know you are looking to learn and improve. This is a sensitive topic and one I would not recommend you delve deep into before you have gained more experience editing. If you pick a non-controversial area, mistakes are a lot better tolerated, and you will find people looking to help you rather than wondering if you are a POV-pusher.But, if you are dead set on it, I would first say that this is not an area where using a few good sources is good enough. You need to use good sources and only good sources. Whatever claim you can't find in quality sources, you should not add in. The beginner instinct is to write what you know and later look for sources; that won't work unless you have an academic degree on that topic. So, I would advise against that. Secondly, I noticed that you are writing more carefully in your conversations on talk pages than you are in articles you create. I suggest that it needs to be the other way around. There are far too many typos in your articles that really should not be there. If you have difficulty writing carefully, you should use your sandbox, your userspace or the draft namespace to develop your articles. In fact, I would recommend that you use the draft space to develop this particular article regardless, and put it through 5606:, which led me to pay more attention to it than I had ever before. Imagine my surprise on finding it manned by an admin with less than a dozen all-time new article reviews. Perhaps they're doing good work, but the whole predicament seemed silly to me. Autopatrol is supposed to work for the benefit of new page reviewers, and here we have a situation where experienced reviewers have to go to an admin with no reviewing experience with their recommendations for autopatrolled.Little things add-up to result an unserious enterprise that perpetually underachieves. I review less than I would want to and fewer than I would like to because I find most articles coming from reasonably experienced editors who ought to know better and who ought to be enforceably told by the community to do better, so useless and so brazen that I can't bring myself to stamp my approval on them. I see no appetite in the community to fix article creation. And I see little else that may have a discernible impact on NPP efficiency, save perhaps a user-friendly mechanism for reviewers to collaborate.Do you have any idea what might happen if the question of notability-check was put to a project-wide discussion? 1241:. You can get feedback for reviewers that way, and you won't have people getting nearly as nervous about your contributions in the draft space. What immediately stood out to me in your article was the headings you used. You had one that said "Arguments Proving Female Privilege" and the other that said "Arguments Against". That gives the impression that female privilege is as real as spheroid earth and those who deny it are like flat-earthers. I highly doubt that is the NPOV reality of that topic. What's more, you used a feminist source that says female privilege does not exist to "prove" the opposite. The second appears to be a feminist source too (I haven't read it). If you use high-quality sources and only high-quality sources and summarise them objectively, being careful not to cherry-pick their findings based on your previous biases, you will have an NPOV-compliant article. Finally, as SandyGeorgia said, do not copy or closely paraphrase from the sources. Copyright is one of the things, like BLP, where there is no room for mistakes. Good luck! 5602:, indeed, "need" not "should". It was sloppy of me and I regret it's gone into record without correction. It appears we fundamentally disagree about what the NPP flowchart says; I am with Novem on that one. And I'd tend to think the status quo is checking for notability. I do not know if that comes from institutional memory or whether there was a capital-C consensus on the purpose of NPP, the former, I assume. But that's what new reviewers learn overwhelmingly, if not universally, and that's how they work, as you are aware. One of the reasons for the long tail is that NPP is by far the most dangerous work you can do as a non-admin. I suspect, precisely because it is a minefield, that most editors tend to err on the side of reviewing a few instead of many, less instead of more, and checking for notability instead of not.I had pinged you from an articlecreator's talk page recently, if you remember. Without fully intending to, I caused the matter to get to 3904:, thank you for reaching out. I acknowledge that you've accepted that you were involved. I just didn't think (still am not clear) we agree on all the ways that you are involved. Given how seriously INVOLVED is taken, I thought it necessary to try to settle. In that quote, you said you thought you were not involved because you were not involved in the content dispute, but the block was not about the content dispute, but subsequent issues that led to blocking, in which you were indeed involved. Rereading it now, technically, you moved on from the content-wise involvement question without saying whether or not you also changed your mind about it. You very well might have skipped it because it became redundant after you'd accepted the behaviour side. But that's where I got the impression you might still be thinking that if it were just the question of content, you would not be involved. Best, 5227:

unnecessary deviation from the issue at hand. Yes, I was harsher to you than I am to guests because you have a higher responsibility and you know to come to my talk page to challenge me instead of being driven off Knowledge after one rude comment. In the past, when hosts have tried to politely explain to other hosts who don't meet expectations the error of their ways, problematic hosts have failed to recognise the gravity of the issue right up until they got banned from the Teahouse. But you are right that I should have been more polite at the teahouse and come to your talk page instead to discuss the matter in detail. I will keep that in mind for next time. My intention was to clarify the seriousness of the issue; that I should certainly find a way to do without being rude. You did too imply that the OP was stupid when you wrote,

154:? As for the draft itself, the current version does not establish why anyone unfamiliar with the subject should care about the subject. So many sources, and I can't tell where the "motivational speaker" bit comes from. So many sources talk about "Adhuro Prem" and it isn't mentioned in the draft. These problems are again indicative of a paid editing job undertaken by people lacking experience in proper Knowledge editing. The sources all come from around the same time. I suppose that was when he came to Nepal and went on tour and he may have received legitimate interest. But it could also be argued that something might have gone on behind the scenes to get all these outlets to publish essentially the same story about the same person around the same time. Therefore, even with these sources, there remain questions about 3959:

while it was fully protected. I am not sure how I came to do that, but I can only assume that I had forgotten that it was protected. Whatever the reason, it was clearly a mistake. (2) My single edit to the article, removing the word "every", was unrelated to the content dispute about the use of the word "axis" versus the expression "number line", which is the dispute which led to the whole saga. Moreover, in making that change I was in agreement with Persianwise; I cannot see any way of reading the policy on "involved" administrators as saying that the fact that I once made an edit which happened to be in agreement with the editor concerned means that I cannot subsequently take action against the same editor on a different matter in which I have no involvement other than an administrative role.

3430:

argument for a particular view. If you think pertinent information is missing from the article, you are welcome to improve it. But that process starts with finding sources. You do not just come to Knowledge and try to make an argument for your point of view just because Knowledge is a popular website. The reason Knowledge makes top results is precisely because Knowledge does not serve up ramblings of random dudes on the internet. If everyone who wanted their voice heard were allowed free reign, Knowledge would devolve pretty quickly, people would stop finding it useful, people would stop clicking Knowledge links when they appear on search, and searches would stop showing Knowledge as top result.

6114:

I was mentioning you), because I had thought you already knew. I had thought you already knew because I had thought that the Mike Blas that I cross paths with on reddit was you. And I was under the impression that that Mike Blas and I had both participated in one of the reddit threads about these scams. Clearly I was mistaken. Maybe we crossed paths elsewhere, maybe that Mike Blas was a different Mike Blas, maybe both. But it does not matter. You are only the latest person whose name they've used. We were discussing something else entirely; your name just happened to be in the story. If you go back to my first comment above, you'll note that I said, "someone

3724: 3466:, you should find the source, and then it may be possible to find a place for it on Knowledge, but not just anywhere, at the appropriate article, at the appropriate place. If you can't find any relialbe source that says the thing that you know, you may have to entertain the possibility that you may be mistaken. If you are sure something is true, but no sources say it, then Knowledge is not the place to say it first. You will have to become an academic or writer, write what you know, and get it published in a reputable publication, then it may be added to Knowledge in the future, citing your work. Best, 3269: 3355:

putting it in multiple places will give it more public exposure. Please do not do that. You have not cited any reliable sources for those claims at all. I can only assume that it's your own theory. If so, first get it published in reliable sources, then we can add it to relevant articles on Knowledge. As I said before, if you are interested in contributing to Knowledge and would like to learn the correct way of going about it, I can help. But, to be blunt, the text you have been adding, they're never going to stick. If not me, someone else will come along in the future to remove it.

5472:, unfortunately, there are far too many accounts that have showed up recently, promoting Dr. Anil and his projects. If you are here for Knowledge, I suggest you stop editing around Dr. Anil for a while. If you move on to something else, hopefully one of the topics not involving living people, companies or products, I will offer my help to get you up to speed with Knowledge. If you are set on working on Dr. Anil projects, I will offer my response as a new page patroller, which is: The Dr. Om Foundation is not notable. Organisations need to meet the strict criteria laid out at 1517:

topics require short elaboration to provide better picture to the readers. I have thoroughly went through the COI, and confirm that I don't have any connections that would allow COI. Offline, I have been a close follower of the legal community in my country(India) for some years now and can affirm from my experience that Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, is a noted figure owing to her work in the Indian Judiciary System. Hence, I moved to penning an article about her on Knowledge. Please help me with any further changes that might be required to move this ahead.

4779:, it was promotional but I couldn't say whether G11 was within discretion without looking at it again. It is suspicious that both creations happened early on in the respective Knowledge careers of the creators, and either failed to make a solid case as to why the subject may be well-known. But it's not impossible that the subject was involved in something that made him social media famous for a short while without generating SIGCOV. In my opinion, there isn't enough in the non-deleted contributions to establish that it's a COI editor. Best, 2003: 2523: 4218:. Spend time and effort first, then engage with me on the article's talk page when you are ready to say more than "Obviously... must have been" or "can be found". Because, guess what? I did check all the sources and read the whole article, and determined that there were no usable sources and content could not be salvaged by editing, not without spending more effort than it would take to restart from scratch. If you can't be bothered to do the work, don't revert me to begin with, and especially don't then come to my talk page to warn me. 5639:, NPP dealt with a significantly larger quantity of articles with a significantly lower quality level. The focus was, by necessity, on CSD and other bright-line problems and notability was simply too far down the list of problems to worry much about. In theory, once we got ACPERM and things got less hectic, there could have been a community- (or at least NPPer-) wide discussion of upping standards. But that didn't happen, and the written guidelines have not changed substantially since the pre-ACPERM days. 4269: 2244: 1428: 659: 356: 1755: 2079: 93:

editor using a pseudonym there who I ensured did not use Knowledge for promotional purposes, make comments like "Celestina is clearly unwell and has a poor command of the English language", I immediately logged off as that wasn’t constructive criticism anymore but pure hate speaking. It’s not my intention to be boastful but when it comes to written English, there are but a few on my level. Observing other entries, I saw a user there refer to me as a loser for being scared of sorcery and reporting

2126: 3062: 31: 725: 3492: 5847:(other admin's names have come up onwiki before), using an official-looking email (something like wikiadmin.org or wikipediaafd.org), contacts people who are close to the subject, after the article is in jeopardy (last time, ongoing afd; this time, declined draft). This time, they said the wikipedia "admin panel" would approve the draft only if they were paid $ 800. Unfortunately, OP forgot to censor what draft it was, so they deleted the post soon as people pointed that out. 5006: 1808: 1660: 1333: 2195:

judgment when they tag pages for deletion but this draft article was just created yesterdat and is only in Draft space so I'd like for it to be reviewed by an editor use to evaluating new drafts. I don't know whether or not you have experience doing that AFC work. The draft could be promotional spam but I'm unsure and would like it to get a second opinion. I just didn't want to untag the page without providing you with an explanation. Thank you for your contributions.

4948: 4817: 1148:, I proudly speak i am a conservative democrat. Just stay away from the extreme westernism which teaches you to speak by your only prospective making you authoritarian. Just stay away from my engineering school. It's one of the most reputed government institution in Nepal. And stay away from those other two. You may be western by your thought but pardon your langauage and it's tone is absolutely not. You yourself are a curse to Nepal and Nepalese society. 2491: 4026: 5804: 1188: 363: 2402: 4442: 2308: 5522: 182:, thats why you sense the similarity in articlr also , no way i am getting paid for this i dont even know the subject personally , about the news i am sure they all came at the time of his tour and that might be because of his availability in nepal , it was easier for news team to contact him . I am continuesly trying to improve the article and get it approved . I will certainly look into your suggestions and improve the article . 5771:, you have my agreement that notability is not an urgent issue. Especially ridiculous is when we try to remove standalones whose content surely belongs if as part of another article. Regarding article creator expectations, I think it could be done if we can assure the community that the expectations would be for regulars who ought to know better, not beginners. And we'd have to grandfather in already existing subpar articles. 5076:

directness as rudeness, which is very different where I live. I didn't start any unhelpful side-arguments, didn't shift any goalposts and I didn't double down on anything. If anyone started a side-argument it was Remsense, right? Note that the order as it appears on the talkpage is not chronological (which may be misleading), and that when I realised it wasn't something they made up I posted a screenshot from the source.

5099:

category. And there was a legitimate discussion to be had about whether that categorisation system is explained anywhere on Knowledge, whether it could be if it's not yet, and whether that particular category could be redirected to that information. Instead, you made a comment implying the OP was stupid for thinking that it was a race. That was not nice at all. I doubt that's nice in any country, Europe or elsewhere.

2395: 4134: 666: 4543: 3646: 2736: 1925: 888: 5876:, no, there's no way to know, even if it's someone who actually edits here. These things come and go. I was keeping an eye because the draft had been declined twice by the same reviewer. Because it is conceivable that a dedicated outfit might target articles they are gatekeeping and are reasonably certain they can hold up until they get paid. It's just a possibility. As I said, it could be coincidence. 4920: 2282: 102: 4068: 4607:

both western malla thakuri and malla thakuri of valley belonges to same clan. Including both share Aringal royal title (bee: convinient for monarchci titles). Kirat dynasty, dynasty before liccahvi dynaty. This edits are dont for information, true information to people, specially nepali people so without Defying my references and reasons conclusvilty kindly don't revert them.

3919:

edit-warred over it). Did you actually check my editing history, or did you just take Persianwise's word for it? If you did check the relevant history and still thought I was involved in the content dispute then you must have an understanding of what "content dispute" means which is so radically different from mine that I have absolutely no idea what you do use it to mean.

3605:

course you already checked those sources link before you delete his content. We contribute on Knowledge very reliable information, It seems you are admin I request you to improve his Knowledge content, if you contribute it would be great. you already banned me to edit. i have edited more than 30 artist's Knowledge only his Knowledge got reversed for the first time.

1007:. What I did with the draft has nothing to do with your sockpuppetry allegations; indeed I prefer to leave sock articles alone as they can be easily speedy deleted as soon as the sock is blocked. I was trying to compare your edits with your alleged sockmasters, substance and style, when I realised what a mess you had dumped into the mainspace. Please read 5349:, I am sorry we could not find an agreement here. I want to clarify that my intention was not to bar you from contributing to the teahouse. I do not have such a power, and even if I did, I would only caution you to do better. My intention was not to discourage you and I apologise again for the suboptimal manner in which I challenged you. Regards! 6517:. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! 5096:. After you realised it was not made up by OP, why didn't you strike your first comment that implied that it was? And regardless, when Remsense told you it was not made up by OP, you didn't go, "Yeah, I know. I did not when I said it". Instead you doubled down, with how it was made up by somebody and how Race is a construct. 1631:, and refrain from using up too much of other editors' time or making demands. You might consider gathering some experience as a volunteer before you start writing articles on topics you can't be objective about. If you forgo that and end up producing a few spammy drafts, you may end up blocked and your company may end up 3023:, but do so only if you really find that the subject is now notable, after careful consideration of the notability guidelines I linked above. Some of your writing is quite promotional (which can accidentally happen). So, you would be taking a risk repeatedly revisiting topics that are non-notable or barely notable. 3151:. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in 3944:

allowed to edit through full protection to enforce or implement a firm consensus of editors as determined by uninvolved editors. You can't say you are going to make the change but would be open to hearing opinions to the contrary from editors whom you deem worthy of contributing, and then go on to do it. Best,

2620: 6110:

At least for the past year, we have been aware of a new scam where they pretend to be admins and contact people asking for money in exchange for saving an article under deletion discussion or approving a draft that's been declined. Brendanconway's name came up a lot earlier so they've added three big

5168:

I don't understand why you throw this weird (what could be perceived as an) accusation into the mix. I would appreciate it if you retracted that or clarified that you did not mean that as an accusation. Revert your comment and let's move on because arguing while we are on the same team and members of

1614:

in order to be added to Knowledge. How important you are or is the work you do is not directly relevant; what matters is whether independent reliable sources have noticed your company and chosen to write in depth about it. And, no, I am not an authority in anything Knowledge; in general, there are no

1348:

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

1025:

Thank you for your reply. I do appreciate the humor and I will try to not make it a mess. I am learning the ins and outs as I go along. I do believe the subject at hand is notable and there is significant coverage in both English and Nepali mediums. I think if you take a look at the articles and do a

181:

Thankyou for replying , i dont know who tried to publish the same article erlier , when i was doing research on the subject , i found the piece of draft some website stored from the deleted article of wikipedia , it was easier for me to shap that available article rather than writing it from starting

92:

Following up on our mail, I did a little digging and I found a thread on myself thrice and Twice on Twitter, I do enjoy constructive criticism, I’m indeed not an expert on MOS, but I do try my best thus I took that one in good faith but immediately I encountered a rather asinine comment by a Nigerian

6135:

Thank you for the clarification. I guess I'm glad you brought this to my attention, but I think you did a terrible job of it. Maybe you were trying to be coy or cute or something, and being so reluctant to provide any kind of context caused me some measure of concern and stress. Your responses to me

6113:

A month, maybe two ago, I became aware from reddit posts that those scammers were also using your name. I thought nothing of it because it's only a coincidence that it happened to be your name that they were using. I did not think to tell you about it before yesterday (when I pinged you only because

5623:

What the flowchart says is, at the end of the day, a red herring: it's not a policy or a guideline, just the workflow of one user, albeit an influential one. I've never been a fan of it, to be honest, but each to their own. What matters at the end of the day is on-wiki consensus expressed in written

5101:

As for what's racist, context matters. Race is very real to people who are oppressed based on that particular construct, and anyone who uses "we are all one race" to get out of addressing injustices would be helping perpetuate racial discrimination and violence irrespective of whether they're racist

5098:

The OP wanted to know whether Knowledge can have an article on "Non-migrant Black, non-Hispanic". I didn't know what they were talking about, so I said what I said. But since you did know what they were talking about, the best thing you could have done was tell them that it's not a race, it's just a

5091:

I consider all humans to be one race as well. But there's a time and place for that argument. And that wasn't it. I can certainly appreciate that there can be cultural differences on what's considered polite. Since this is a global project and Teahouse has an already established etiquette, it's best

5075:

Hiya, very confused by your edit over at the Teahouse. Can you explain what you think I did wrong? I've noticed that in America people still use "race", but over here in Europe that is considered extremely outdated (and pretty racist ngl). Another cultural difference is that people seem to interpret

3604:

Thank you for writing, I did not realize how does it seem promoted, but there are a lot of things that about his achievements which should know to other coming aspiring film makers and as per Knowledge guidelines the citation which i had given while i writing about him are very reliable sources. Of

3338:

I found out that u have came nepal for only 2 year, and u have started to interfer in my countrys history? beofre chaning talk to me, if u win the debate, u can change them. else don't touch my countris history. i warn u. whoever u r, which country u'r from. u'll face concequences of trying to alter

1726:

To be honest, I don't get as much free time as I used to, articles in the pile are mostly crap, NPP has no straightforward way to handle crap, and the whole notability and deletion areas are in upheaval. I have way to go in catching up with all the changes in the past year to SNGs and whatever else,

1481:

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

1368:

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.

1098:

were hinderance to his wiki career and hence he led a campaign of block against me else there was no reson to block a scholar like me on wiki community. I will continue @Usedtobecool, I am still cool and ccoperative than you. A proud democrat who judges to stay away from conspiracy theories of Marx,

1050:

is too reverential toward a person who's done pretty run-of-the-mill activism so far, to not be a product of either a personal or a professional connection with the subject. Add to that the fact that your draft contains intricate details from his life not found in any of the sources you cited, and I

812:

620:

So, according to the Oxford Dictionary, asking for explanations of rejection is referred to as an obsession? I've written more than hundred articles on this site, and not one of them is COI, which you use to evade or change the subject. Since I'm not happy with your response, I don't think I need to

410:

5748:

RfCs are definitely to be used sparingly, but historically the community has been quite willing to listen and makes changes when NPP says it is struggling to keep up: that's how we got draftspace, and ACPERM, and the NPP right. To avoid ending up with an unachievable outcome, it might make sense to

5651:

group of reviewers who have a maximalist view of what NPPers should do (which they're perfectly welcome to) and are also very convinced that their way is the only right way (which gets irritating, to be honest). But I do not think they are in the majority, not even close, and you might be surprised

5642:

More subjectively, I've done reviewing-the-reviewers type work (through autopatrolled, NPR, etc) for years now, and it has not been my impression at all that notability is "overwhelmingly, if not universally" a core concern. There's a wide variety of reviewing styles out there and the vast majority

5300:

If virtue signalling is your thing, by all means. I am just telling you that it is inadvisable to do so in a manner that derails attempts at helping a newbie at the teahouse. To address the point, you asked me to address earlier, I did not bring up racism, you did. I am pretty sure I did not accuse

5148:

No. They wrote: "You know that they were not referring...and that they did not make up..." and my response was: "I am a timetraveller, but only in one direction.". Back when I wrote the comment at 10:55 I could not know what OP was referring to. I cannot read minds. So first I agreed with Remsense,

4606:

The baleswar inscriptinon itself have mentioned that western malla viz khas malla belongs to buddhist jina family. Their are 5 jinas in mahayana/vajrayana buddhsim. Among those 5 only 1 is related to LOTUS. and that is ... Amitaba buddha, Avaleteswara, machindranath. So its conclusive evidence that

3985:

Indeed we can agree that it's best to avoid, if at all possible, situations that might give rise to questions regarding INVOLVED rather than trying to determine where exactly the line is. The perception, especially of regular users, is as much important, as the technicality of policy. I am relieved

3967:

A brief summary of what I see as the lesson of this whole affair, taking into account both what various editors, including you, have said, and my own thoughts on the matter, is that I believe that if I had taken more time to think the matter through, I would have done things very differently, but I

3958:

Well, I have thought carefully about what you have written, and there are many things I could say here, some of them agreeing with you, and some not, or not totally, but I will restrict myself to the following comments. (1) You are right in saying that I should not have made the edit to the article

3778:

now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out

3316:

Hello. Its clear to us that the last thakuri of nuwakot was dew sing. thakuri *= rulers. Their is no meaning of baru in nepali history. The name only indicates it is singh thakuri, including the local ethic peopls STATEMENTS. that it is dew singh and his clan brother who used to rule in nuwakot as

1865:

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View

1845:

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply (with a ping) to let us know

1300:

It's weird that you should come to my talk page to educate me about edit warring for my single revert while you have reverted two separate editors three times in two days. Anyway, that was my last edit yesterday. I was composing my reply to the talk page but I had to leave before I was done. I will

1276:

would be one of the three we kept, since he is in fact "notable". The most sound tactic for justifying that we don't need this content would be if we expanded it to cite more, better sources with more significant interpretations. But in order to get to that point, less than perfect content needs to

968:

I would like your constructive criticism regarding Kedar Narsingh KCs page so I can make it better. Instead of moving it into the draft space, I would have appreciated it if you had made the edits yourself in the mainspace. Another wikipedia user had already approved the page, so I don't understand

690:

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

373:

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

5655:

Of course, what NPPers think they should be doing themselves is only part of the equation. I agree with you that NPP is a sort of junior-adminship and as such strongly believe that we have a responsibility to review according to the wider community's expectations, not our own. So if the notability

5184:

My thoughts were pretty much that "you seemed as if you knew what was best for the asker more than they did"—it's completely understandable that a cultural/lexical gap played into this—I've been there, certainly, and I'll continue to be there—but I felt it was appropriate to try to firmly, briefly

5135:

Agreed, but I would argue that what you wrote is quite impolite and certainly not fit for the Teahouse which is supposed to be a more friendly place. It is fine to disagree with me, and you are always welcome on my talkpage, but to attack me like that is counterproductive. We are on the same team.

3589:

You are banned from Knowledge for repeatedly socking. So, you should not be editing at all, other than to appeal your ban. You are trying to promote one person. That is not what Knowledge is for. Get unbanned, and follow proper procedures for paid or conflict-of-interest editing, and I'll tell you

2924:) and it was declined for the same reason. This leads me to believe you were not able to learn from the first incident. What went wrong? Have you now got some idea of how CSD works or you would like us to start from the top. I would like to hear your thoughts so we can decide how to proceed. Best, 2194:

I wanted to ask you about your tagging of this draft. It looks, at face value, like a prominent company, but I'm not sure about evaluating sources in this country's media so I've untagged the article for now. I'd like for it to be looked over by an AFC reviewer. I usually trust new page reviewer's

2039:

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

4640:

this is not the protocol to edit on wikipedia. if you have solid reference to the edits you can edit the page. confirm and verify the refernces i have provided than remove my changes. i'm doing it for people so they know true history of their country. don't change anything in royalty page without

3943:

On a tangential but important note, your edit to the article was an abuse of admin tools. You edited through full-protection circumventing it with your admin powers to change the article to your preferred version while the rest of the editors of the article had no such capability. Admins are only

1575:

I should add that I am helping to boost our (Facilis’) internet presence. For example, all of competitors have Knowledge pages, including the aforementioned Avid Technology. It would go along way to validate our 20-year-old company if people could at least read a short bio on a page that is not

1516:

Thanks for your input on the page. As stated I have removed all the external links, from the article body, despite that some references required to be there. I have cited all claims made in the article with the best of my knowledge and references. I have tried making the article concise, but some

5581:

Given the large and growing backlog, it is unfortunate that a small group of very vocal (but not actually very active) reviewers have recently been trying to tell stretched, jobbing NPPers that they need to do even more work than they already are. One thing you are absolutely right about is that

4655:

You can edit the pages but others can revert you as well, especially if the text does not make sense and the references don't verify the text you've added. We've already been through that. The next step then, for you, is not to reinstate the edits again but to start a discussion on the talk page

3429:

S would have done, and you were making an argument to try and convince the reader to your point of view. Knowledge summarises information. If there is debate or controversy, Knowledge summarises that too. Knowledge summarises arguments that each side might have, Knowledge does not itself make an

2107:

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,

3989:

Thank you for indulging me. My understanding has benefitted from reading your perspective as well. In fact, I just went back to the last major arb case involving INVOLVED that I remember, just out of curiosity, and found people asking the same questions. What makes contributions to a particular

3918:

The content issue was a disagreement between Persianwise and D.Lazard about what wording should be included in the article. I never expressed any opinion on which wording should be included, nor did I edit the article in connection with the dispute (contrary to Persianwise's absurd claim that I

3354:

Not really how Knowledge works. You don't add information that you know or think you know, you add information that other reputable sources have already covered. You are adding the same bit of text to multiple articles where they are barely relevant. It is obvious you are spamming in hopes that

3318:

90% reason goes to point out that dew sing was final lineage of nuwakot thakuri who ruled their with his borthers. We can also see that during nuwakot gorkha war kantipur had sent theri army also in that battle. i.e final battle were fought by both dew sing and kantipur armies. Before chnaging

5725:

is, I think, a part of the problem. For a long time it was dominated by a single editor with a very hard-line view on inclusion, and the syllabus reflects that. Some of the current vocal group came through there, and it shows. But only a tiny proportion of NPPers (less than 5%) do so. It's not

5453:) and redirect it. I have gone through your user page and got enough information about authentic media sources we need to keep in mind during creating articles. I will keep this in mind for my future work. I saw you helping new comers and thereby expecting similar support. Thank you 🙏 🙏 4689:

As I advised six months ago, claims need to be verifiable with published reliable independent sources. Inscriptions can not be a source, only academic works about the inscriptions can be. Similarly common facts among nepali community can not be a source, academic works about said facts can be.

4674:

didn't you read the reference i added in my changes? the baleswar inscription themselves are the solid evidences what i have mentioned. and some are common facts among nepali community. nepal never have been conquired by different clan all the malla either it is western malla or tirhut mala or

4351:

I'll restore your version until I get clarity on this. Also, not sure on your definition of SYNTH. SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. You might be labelling any analysis as synth, when it isn't (see

3963:

I was not involved in the dispute concerning which I took action. Nevertheless, I can see, with hindsight, that my participation to the discussion involving the editor in question was close enough to being "involved" that it would have been much better had I stayed away from any administrative

783:

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.

395:

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

4374:

well, it is a call an editor makes by themself, which is not what Knowledge is supposed to do. And it is quite common; I may have even written "best known for" before. But what's common does not say what's best. Knowledge articles have a lot of problems and very few quality-oriented editors.

2883:

If you are interested in patrolling new articles and flagging them for improvement or nominating them for deletion, as it appears you are, I would be happy to guide you on that one too. But it takes months of work even with guidance. And even after years, it does not get any easier. Regards!

5226:

No, it was time to explain to them that they are African-American. You don't tell a person who's asking whether the sun goes around the earth that it is scientific consensus that they both go around the galactic centre while going around the centre of mass of the two bodies. That's a wholly

6016:

has had a particularly frustrating time with it. To clarify my previous comment, I remember seeing a Mike Blas comment on one of the reddit threads as an uninvolved party, not pretending to be the scammer. We only know about the scams from the screenshots. Presumably, some of our savvy

3878:

There seems to be a misunderstanding in the recent ANI discussion. In your post at 18:20 you appear to think that you are disagreeing with me about whether or not I was "involved", or did I misunderstand what you were saying? I had previously said "I was not thinking clearly; I thought

5280:

I wrote: "They also use "Non-Migrant Unknown". Do you think "Non-Migrant Unknown" is also a race?" because if they agree that "Non-Migrant Unknown" is not a race they might logically conclude that not every one of those HIPAA codes are races. Using logic wouldn't work on truly stupid

1029:

This is not about one person or character, it's about the Nepali medical community having a bigger say in the policies of our country and having an all-in-all source for young generations to learn from. I will make the changes you suggested and will not use any references as you have

6070:

Thanks for adding some clarity! I do know that Knowledge struggles with user identity, but I have no idea what "reasons" this user has for thinking that I know anything about whatever this scam might be. How do I learn more about this, and what steps must I take to clear my name? --

5566:: searching for sources and assessing level of coverage, or evaluating it against an SNG. I agree with you that my position is not the "consensus position", but only insofar as there isn't a consensus on how much NPP needs to concern itself with notability. I recently summarised the 6173:, yes, on hindsight, I messed up from the very beginning. I think I would have done better if I had not assumed you were already aware of the general situation. Again, sorry for the confusion and distress it caused you. I will let you know first if your name comes up again. Regards! 740:

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.

701:

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).

1539:, sorry, I do not have more time to give it. That is why I did not "review" the draft. I left advice regarding the most glaring issues in the hopes that it will prove helpful to you. Someone else will review your submission and provide additional feedback as necessary. Regards! 6208:'s structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion: 131:) the reference i have provided are , the Kathmandu post , the himalayan times , ekantipur , ngarik , my republica setopati . How can someone covered by all these reliable media doesn't pass notability guildline , please checkthe draft and suggest me your opinion . thankyou 6111:

notices on their userpage warning of the scam; that's all they could do about it. Their talk page still has messages from the victims/targets. Before that, someone had contacted Jimmy Wales about a different admin and that led to all the dram that Moneytrees mentioned above.

2136:

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!

686:

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 at the end of May.

5040:, and welcome to Knowledge! I hope you stick around. You are young enough that you can get started right now or anytime in the future when you feel comfortable or have the time to contribute. I will leave a few links on your talk page to get you started. You can visit the 4183:? I did explain. Refer to the edit summary. Is it your contention that the page was not spam? Point to me one reliable independent source in that version. Please don't bring lies to my talk page. I am watching the article, so you can start a discussion on its talk page. 3508:

team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting

2916:. Post 2022, I can see two incidents. You do not maintain a CSD log, so I can not tell if you have had many (or any) successes with CSD. But, I am assuming that this is one of the things you would like to work on. Anyway, back to the two incidents. The first one was 2956:

hello mentor, once i created an article about a person but it was deleted, they gave me a reason that the person was not notable enough at that time but now, he fullfilled the criteria as he became the police chief of an indian state. can i re create the article ?

3259: 5235:

In fact that is the only reason to say that instead of saying, "No, it's not a race. It's just a category." I don't know how to explain it to you, if you don't see it. But don't take my word for it. You can ask other hosts whether they agree you could do better.

975:

I am currently a MBBS student and I wanted to make Dr. KC's page after reading about his candidacy for the upcoming elections. I believe he meets the notability guidelines both in the medical and political community of Nepal. I am not a close connection of his.

4095:

the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

1218:. The NPOV, is going to be non neutral, as Male Priv isn't necessarily npov as well. It really gives the other dynamic to a perspective. I was also developing the white female priv that has an effect on black females. Is there anything else I should do? 601:

I rejected it because the topic is not notable. There is no point wasting more time on a non-notable topic. Obviously, you have some reason for this obsession, but you've been wasting other editors' time on this for a year and a half, and doing so without a

430:

What's your purpose and intensions? You own wikipedia or you just rejected draft instead of declining it? We are not wasting here our time dealing with vandalism, contributing to wikipedia. Should i open the discussion? It really won't go well for you?

3425:. You were erasing "kirants" from that article and adding "tamangs" with no explanation and no changes to referencing. The third thing that was wrong was that it was not encyclopedic writing. You were explaining simple things in too much detail where 681:

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

6053:

Offwiki, scammers will extort semi-notable article subjects by posing as an admin. They tend to pose as admins with "real sounding" names or otherwise established real life identities. A scammer is pretending to be you, similar to what happened

4891:

I saw that they had posted a question, but I missed the fact that you had actually responded to it. It was all a bit cluttered, so I thought the best thing to do was pop their comment at the bottom and respond - didn't mean to leave you behind.

97:

for threatening me. In the end I guess if i have three threads dedicated to me and two mention of me on Twitter, Invariably it means, I must be doing something right, which is negating unethical practices and it also means I’m Knowledge famous

6319: 528:

and you do agree with me that we are definitely here to create and produce more Nepal related contents. For this reason, I hope you rectify your action and do the needful. Let's not create more disputes on this. I don't want to put it on

6453: 2880:. You will find there, other experienced editors, writing articles and featuring them on the main page. The process can help improve your editing, and you can give back by reviewing other people's articles, once you become comfortable. 3113:: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them 1571:

Facilis (Facilis Technology, Inc.) has existed for over 20 years. Facilis servers over 10,000 companies and ranges from YouTube personalities like ‘Ross Creations’ to major Hollywood film studios like NBC Universal and Sony pictures.

6277: 5691:, I agree the flowchart isn't a core concern. Our views on what's status quo too comes down to personal experience which will unsurprisingly differ, though admittedly you have way more of it than I. I am looking at the syallabus of 3189:, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script. 1214:

I saw your comments, which I am fine with. WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. If I remove the JK Rowling, that should address the BLP. The RS, I believe there is a few good sources including Harvard Business Review, as well as through here

5574:, and WhatamIdoing added some useful historical context in the same thread. ICPH's flowchart is, incidentally, one of those guidelines: if you read it carefully, notability only enters the picture if a web search does not turn up 2623:

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

2912:, so I have had a look at your contribution history, and you seem a different person since the beginning of 2022. So, I am going to ignore what happened before then, which did include some incidents with your application of the 3333: 3413:, I would advise you to start a discussion on the talk page of that article rather than mine. I didn't mean to say the information you added was wrong. It may or may not be wrong. There is no way of knowing because you do not 6305: 6271: 4734: 4726: 2066:

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

1579:

Thank you for your time I hope that I will have the ability to do this. If I am talking to the correct person, I apologize. You sent me a welcome message so I kind of figured you were an authority on all things Knowledge.

5253:

A lot of people don't like the term African-American and some find it offensive. I can certainly label a human as human, and no one would be offended by that. But I am not going to call people I don't know on the internet

4016: 1081:

Its me a researcher cum engineering student. I have brough a conclusion from your confession that you are a coms student most probably and linked somehow to KC family. This is your edit, your writing style and cohesion.

1256: 6485: 6231: 5663:

On autopatrolled, sorry for missing your ping. My vague memory is that I've assessed that user for autopatrolled before and decided they weren't ready. But I can't remember the details. I usually try to keep on top of

2513:

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.

6349:, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%. 3344: 3324: 3302: 6237: 6425: 6331: 5155:

This is where you are wrong again. I clearly did not. You seem to interpret things very differently than I would. If I thought OP was stupid I wouldn't be talking about social constructs and taxonomic significance.

3748:: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can 3273: 3261: 2821:, welcome! Is there a particular reason you think you are need of higher privileges? They don't give you any more authority on which articles Knowledge should have or what they should contain than any other editor. 1216: 6411: 2108:

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.

1153: 6381: 1104: 6471: 6387: 6253:, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only. 3389:

i'm giving wikipedia priority only cas in search enginehs the information of wikipedia comes at top and having this debate and investing my time here. if u can prove even my single content, u can change them.

126:

I had started a article for creation and submitted it for a review but i was not happy with the reviewer , the subject i have created have coverage in almost every reliable news of nepal ( i have also checked

6439: 4626:, your edits to articles and your messages on talk pages are borderline incomprehensible. Even if you are correct, you need to propose your changes on talk pages first so others can try to make sense of them. 374:

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.

6104:, I was not accusing you. No one thinks you had anything to do with the scam. I said *reasons* at first to avoid saying that I know a Mike Blas on reddit, which could potentially have been a violation of our 6213: 3348: 3016:

if most other Director Generals of Police of Indian states already have an article. Almost all articles meeting GNG are kept. If you have to bring up NEXIST, you are merely hoping and praying at that point.

6325: 4722: 2618:

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

166:. If there's coverage from outside that short window, that would certainly help. And if the draft objectively summarised the available reliable sources, the draft might be accepted despite UPE suspicions. 6257: 1118:

goes, one could do worse than Congress, Nidhi and Engineering School. Yet, you seem to have bought into anti-Christian bigotry. You probably don't even know where you picked it. I recommend you look into

5419: 5411: 2534:

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.

5553:

I only saw your ping after the thread was archived, and probably it doesn't need a response, but just for clarity (and because who likes being misquoted?): my position, expressed in that discussion and

2013:

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

1048:

5572:

peripheral concern of NPP, far down the list of priorities and generally limited to checking for obvious lack of significance (CSD-level or near) and using notability tags to triage more complex cases

1003:

I believe I've left plenty of constructive criticisms in the article's history having first tried to clean it up and only moved it to draft once I realised it didn't have much worth preserving and no

5129:

They got confused by a HIPAA code, and believe(d) that it was their race. That is certainly the time and place to explain that in reality they are a member of the human race, like all living humans.

4471:. 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 2337:. 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 6499: 2835:

Oh, Hm, I thought it would be a nice expansion of my Knowledge duties. I'm trying to be part of the community in a bigger way. Do you have any suggestions outside making articles? JohnDVandevert (

1773:, 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. 736:

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 Knowledge's projects and policy pages.

6291: 4085: 3385:

birupaksya = chief of this nagas who became shiva after meditation (yogic culture) just like buddha not some alian stuff (shiva is class of god in hindu system, ask someone who knows sanskrit)

969:

why you would tag it for speedy deletion and move it into the draftspace. It seems like some kind of vendetta and I don't understand why you think your opinion is more legitimate than others.

2596:: 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 6367: 3819:: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use 6514: 4760:

I get where you're coming from. I had to think about this a bit. Would you agree with me that the article was also promotional? I felt it was, and I think an undeclared COI is also likely.

3196:. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that 1290: 259:, Radio Nepal, sure. NAN is probably reliable but I wouldn't count it for notability just yet. They are a business and they haven't even settled on the look for their website yet. Regards! 1867: 5185:

point out that impression. As always, I hope that I can navigate these touchy situations giving everyone the dignity they deserve, I hope I can communicate that intent with you as well.

4031:

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the

5582:

highly effective reviewers---the people who have historically kept the backlog down---have not gone looking for sources for each article. Doing so at scale is completely unrealistic. –

5407: 5392: 4568: 3749: 3671: 1953: 6353: 2068: 392:

New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 851 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

5660:

it wouldn't end up with the community insisting we check each article for notability, because as I said above I don't think that's actually realistically possible, but you never know.

5501:

Thank you very much for putting things clearly. I can understand now. I will seek your help in my future work. I will do as you suggested and only edit it if it has reliable sources.

4487: 2353: 2168:

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

2132:

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

5284:

Saying someone is a member of the human race is the scientifically and politically correct thing to do, and your suggestion of using African-American might be perceived as offensive.

4056: 3287: 6536: 5745:, from which it derives. Nowhere in those core policies will you find support for the idea that lack of notability is an urgent problem that every article needs to be screened for. 4276: 3107:

for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

2251: 962:

I want to first state that I am not a sock-puppet of any user. I have used Knowledge a long time for personal reasons and I have started editing various different pages recently.

5332:

At this point it would probably be best if you said: "Aw shucks I didn't know that thanks" and then we can just go do something more fun. So I am just gonna assume you said that.

4456: 2322: 913: 719: 1615:

authorities on Knowledge. One follows the policies and guidelines, and tries to be welcoming and helpful to others that they might respond in kind.Be warned though, Knowledge is

1171: 1157: 6191: 4676: 4642: 4623: 4608: 3459: 3445: 3406: 3391: 2761: 1132: 2990:

I created an article on Gyanendra Pratap Singh who was Special DGP of Assam so it was deleted as He was the special DGP but now he beacme Director General of Police of Assam.

5406:

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at

4721:

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at

1565:

I can prove that I work there; I’m an admin for the website and a full-time salaried employee. What do I have to do to become a user with the ability to author an article?

5149:

and expressed my regret at not being able to travel backwards in time, and then I nitpicked a bit and then I posted a short explanation for the benefit of OP, not Remsense.

3340: 3320: 3298: 3114: 3008:

was not met. Before you try to write it up again, you need to make sure that it is. A promotion by itself is not enough. Failing GNG, you could make a weaker argument from

6464: 4037: 4018: 3971:

Thank you for your contribution to getting me to think the matter through. I hope I have learnt from the incident, and will be less likely to make similar mistakes again.

3019:

Since this article has been recreated before and you really don't have the experience to write a neutral article, you should start in draft space and submit your work to

1149: 695: 385: 3968:

acted over-hastily. I think the best thing to have done would have been simply to take the matter directly to ANI, rather than first blocking and then taking it there.

2706: 1100: 862: 5656:

question continues to be a point of contention, I think it would be good idea to put to a project-wide discussion. I've been considering starting one for a while. I

5567: 4356:). My guess was that if a subject's notability and fame is derived from podcasting, it wouldn't be unreasonable to mention it. Could be wrong. I will check though. 4122: 1695:

Hey, thanks! And thanks for doing this. I was so going to do this but never got around to it. Hopefully, I will be able to get back to reviewing again, soon. Best,

1108: 4596: 4146: 3823:

voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

3613: 3579: 6495:, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms. 6204:. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving 3699: 1871: 2615: 2577:. 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 2010: 1770: 1408: 5635:

of the relevant written guidelines—current and previous, linked in the thread I mentioned above—do not say it is. A key thing to bear in mind here is that, pre-

5476:

which this organisation fails. I will move the article that you had made to draftspace if that's what you want. You can work on it there and get it reviewed by

5318:

Being polite is not the same as virtue signaling. I did help OP at the Teahouse, despite your disruption. Thank you for clarifying that it was just an example.

3364: 2792: 191: 140: 2811: 2797: 2510: 2133: 1937: 1917: 1503: 3462:, and welcome back. If you know something, and it's not on Knowledge, first ask yourself, where do you know it from? If you know it from having read it in a 5981:

Someone with the same name had commented on reddit in one of those threads. So, I thought that was you. Or I would have let you know as soon as I found out.

1162:

No, that's just nazism with different victims. You need not bother posting here again. Nor anywhere else for that matter; I will be reverting you on sight.

965:

Secondly, I don't want to haggle with you or fight with you over the internet. As with all Nepali people, we tend to abuse our power when in any position.

6287:, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting. 4580: 4514: 3848: 3771: 3683: 3539: 3250: 3148: 2776: 2683: 2380: 2185: 2176: 2072: 1965: 1778: 1486: 925: 817: 416: 972:

I have used multiple different reliable sources for the article including The Kathmandu Post, The Himalayan Times, Swasthyakhabar and many other sources.

335: 317: 299: 282: 268: 175: 6550: 5037: 5019: 4750: 4713: 3561: 2641: 1362: 1115: 121: 5257:

I did a quick Google for you but you can find more information about this topic if you Google something like "reject term African-American" like I did.

2098:

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.

1411:. 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. 3813:, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD. 3444:

ok, i'm little new in this wiki editing so i might be little poor in it. i'll do by best to learn the best way in way. thank you for the suggestions.

3104: 2748: 1064: 1041: 1020: 3306: 2898:

That would be great! I'd love if you were willing to help me with that. Im definitively here for the long haul so no rush on my end. JohnDVandevert (

2573:: 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 1536: 1521: 6562: 6315:, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured. 4389:

Yeah, I agree, hence I reverted myself. It was just something I had always seen done. I asked on the teahouse page if you want to see the feedback:

3328: 2966: 5808: 3865: 2947: 2015: 1192: 634: 615: 564: 459: 5439: 5555: 5391: 4699: 4684: 4669: 4650: 4635: 4061: 3475: 3453: 3439: 2768:

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.

1599: 1584: 1250: 949: 606:

declaration. For a new page reviewer, it's peculiar, how often you are involved with and hung up on promotional articles on non-notable topics.

5947:

oh, I got the impression you knew for *reasons*. Not the incident we were talking about here, but here's an older example that's very similar:

4522: 1989: 1902: 1404: 5627:

On whether always checking for notability is the status quo, I'm afraid I'm going to have to pull the 'longer memory' card on this one. It is

1568:

Facilis Technology is one of Avid Technology’s main competitors in shared storage; specifically their storage products: ‘Isis’ and, ‘Nexus’.

3625: 3583: 596: 546: 503: 4149:

without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Knowledge with an accurate

116: 6197: 5366:

I love you too. I also apologize. Even when we disagree about tiny details there are thousands of other more important things we agree on.

650: 5643:

of reviewers just read the guidelines (which, again, do not emphasis notability) and get on with it, without being particularly active at

5462: 2806:

Hello! You are my mentor apparently. I was wondering how someone can become an administrator or overseer for new pages? --JohnDVandevert (

1529: 150:. And then you show up. And your editing is strongly suggestive of UPE as well. So, are you willing to disclose your paid connections per 6577: 4078: 3214:

4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

3200:, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest. 2715: 2675:

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

2637: 1265: 1258: 997: 4390: 3399: 1310: 1227: 5423: 4738: 4616: 3225: 2933: 2903: 2893: 2840: 2830: 2655: 2148: 867: 6403:, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the 3793:#1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their 2546: 2045: 1268:

rather than edit war. If everyone cited in an article had to be Roger Ebert, then you would need to delete some 48 other citations in

6541: 5063: 4932: 3936:

Indeed I looked at the article and the talk page after it became clear I was going to post more than a couple passing comments. With

3841: 3617: 3599: 3532: 3243: 2669: 2294: 2162: 2093:

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

1464: 1316: 795: 683: 378: 5375: 5360: 5341: 5327: 5312: 5295: 5247: 5113: 4244: 4227: 4209: 4192: 2466: 1793: 1548: 845:

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

5537: 5513: 5495: 5092:

to try and adapt to that than arguing "but this is what's polite in my country". You did shift the goalposts in conversation with

4878: 4864: 4420: 4402: 4384: 4365: 4346: 3032: 2999: 2985: 1736: 1718: 1704: 6184: 6145: 6129: 6032: 6007: 5992: 5976: 5961: 5942: 5927: 5904: 5887: 5868: 5856: 4990: 4100: 2976:, thanks for reaching out. Can you tell me who you are talking about or at least what criteria you think they now meet? Regards! 2439: 1644: 698:

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).

5782: 5763: 5710: 5683: 5617: 4293: 3574:

could you please let me know why this hasn't approved for publish and how can i correct it if there is problem in the writing?

3571:

i wrote about uttam neupane and added very reliable cite links, which are already approved in many celebrities Knowledge pages.

2710: 1395:

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

6404: 6080: 6065: 5444: 5212: 5198: 4434: 3566: 2300: 308:, I don't think so. It's Himalaya not Himalayan. They are trying to take advantage of the Himalayan brand with a similar name. 249: 5719:

doesn't emphasise notability. I know, because I wrote the section titled "notability" last year. Before that there wasn't one.

4972: 2268: 1403:

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

6096: 5027: 3937: 1508: 482: 444: 5224:

That is certainly the time and place to explain that in reality they are a member of the human race, like all living humans.

4802: 4788: 4002: 3980: 3953: 3928: 3913: 2225: 6532: 4592: 4510: 4118: 3861: 3695: 3485: 2788: 2702: 2597: 2376: 1855: 1789: 1499: 858: 4906: 4579:

You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself

3682:

You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself

2775:

You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself

2601: 2471: 1964:

You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself

1880: 924:

You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself

6543: 5967:

Sorry -- I still don't understand. What reasons are you referring to? All I have is your ping from this conversation. --

5948: 5562:

check for notability, if they don't have a reason to doubt notability. 'Check' here meaning something along the lines of

4153:. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use 4042: 1837: 381:, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant. 5912:, just another scam that used your name. You are aware it's been happening, aren't you? Perhaps you should consider the 4769: 1994: 5593: 4680: 4646: 4612: 3609: 3575: 3449: 3395: 3077:: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 2754:

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.

2676: 2169: 1897: 1095:

is a dead burnt plaster on wikipedia now, an eagle who can't see other's perform well. My contributions including this

5820: 5142:

I sort-of did, in a friendly not very serious way. See what I wrote about timetravel? That was me agreeing with them.

4855:

did you read the template you were adding? I am not required to give a reason, and you are not allowed to restore it.

4393:. I think Firedangledfeathers made a good point which is similar. Thanks for discussing it, this has been productive. 1943:

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.

146:

Under normal circumstances, I would err on the side of keeping this article. But, the original author was blocked for

4173: 2921: 2917: 2542: 2450: 2041: 1602:, you do not need to prove your employment; it will not help or hinder your case. Please disclose your situation per 1439: 1051:

am left with no doubt. It would help if you would stop denying it. Either way, please make sure the draft adheres to

517: 3894: 3742:

redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

3042: 6224: 6205: 4845: 4240: 4205: 4169: 4104: 2388: 2206: 1674:

For over 360 article reviews during 2021. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -

1204: 954: 87: 72: 67: 59: 4560:

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

3663:

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

3274:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 18 § Category:Association football people by prefecture in Japan

3262:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 18 § Category:Association football people by prefecture in Japan

3185:, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit 905:

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

551:

If you are asking me whether I would consider approving the draft to avoid being dragged to AN, the answer is no.

6528: 4588: 4506: 4114: 3857: 3691: 2784: 2563:). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the 2372: 1785: 1495: 854: 5178: 5085: 1683: 347: 3704: 5277:

It is important to give people the freedom to express their own identity instead of labeling them incorrectly.

4323: 1592: 1419:

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated

5301:

you of anything when making my response about "we are all one race" and racism. The example was hypothetical.

4312: 3723: 2040:(including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the 1860: 1407:). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it 2567:

are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

2101: 4480: 2346: 1978: 1447: 938: 5837: 6044: 4938: 4492: 3417:

when adding new text. Therein lies the first problem. The second thing that was wrong with your edit was

2358: 1391:

have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.

1209: 389: 6055: 5265: 4197:

Obviously there must have been some, but there are independent reliable sources that can also be found.

4035:

guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

3311: 6558: 6522: 5861:

And the scammer is the person who approved the current draft in question and is defending it at AFD? -

4755: 3317:

their local king, prince. since thakury dynasty was founded by nuwakot thakuries we can see that : -->

2724: 1420: 38: 4113:

There is a backlog of over 1200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help!

1828:

article reviews during 2020. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -

1446:

exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page

4833: 4531: 4353: 4256: 4154: 4142: 3634: 2112: 1911: 1286: 876: 3961:"In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved." 583:

I didn't told you to approve the draft, i asked you the cause of rejection instead of declining it.

6481:, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators. 5816: 4303:

FYI, using the label "best known for" is acceptable in the lead of a biography when it matches the

4032: 2899: 2836: 2807: 2578: 2574: 1278: 3759: 2920:. You were briefed on why your nomination failed. One year later, you made the second nomination ( 5410:. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at 4725:. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at 2692: 2231: 1272:

of sources that are not notable by Knowledge's standards. Ironically, if that was how it worked,

1223: 425: 331: 295: 278: 245: 187: 136: 3986:

to read that that edit over goldlock was a simple oversight; I had hoped that might be the case.

524:. May be we don't have good on-wiki relation so you rejected it absurdly. We both are member of 6574: 6181: 6126: 6029: 5989: 5958: 5924: 5884: 5853: 5779: 5707: 5614: 5534: 5492: 5357: 5309: 5244: 5110: 5060: 5023: 4996: 4987: 4929: 4901: 4861: 4785: 4696: 4666: 4632: 4417: 4381: 4343: 4289: 4224: 4189: 3999: 3950: 3910: 3873: 3596: 3472: 3436: 3361: 3029: 2982: 2930: 2890: 2827: 2291: 2264: 2222: 1733: 1701: 1641: 1545: 1442:

is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read

1307: 1247: 1168: 1129: 1061: 1017: 612: 561: 456: 403:

understanding of Knowledge notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing

314: 265: 172: 112: 47: 17: 388:

have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently

6554: 6518: 5548: 4468: 4157:. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on 3422: 3370: 3197: 2334: 2184: 1798: 1562:

I’m interested in posting an article about the place where I work, Facilis Technology, Inc.

232: 202: 155: 3382:

nagas surrounding kathmandu valley = Nepali ethnics who are present in hills sourring valley

3210:? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is 1885: 1709:

Yes please. We need more folk reviewing. The backlog is "TOO DAMN HIGH", as the meme goes. -

1474:

understanding of Knowledge notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing

1096: 805:

understanding of Knowledge notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing

6062: 5371: 5337: 5323: 5291: 5208: 5174: 5081: 5045: 4821: 4601: 4479:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4236: 4201: 4165: 4158: 3775: 3510: 3186: 3156: 2564: 2559:

guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and

2345:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1894: 1525: 1297: 1282: 767: 752: 5672:

but I'm very busy with off-wiki stuff right now and will be for the foreseeable future. –

5203:

We'll butt heads for a bit and then we both get bored and move on to more fun activities.

5146:

Instead you doubled down, with how it was made up by somebody and how Race is a construct.

8: 5812: 5722: 5692: 5509: 5458: 5133:

it's best to try and adapt to that than arguing "but this is what's polite in my country"

4886: 4874: 4841: 4398: 4361: 4319: 3418: 3292: 3182: 3174: 3160: 2995: 2962: 2909: 2846: 2818: 2799: 1851: 1833: 1714: 1679: 1037: 993: 981: 757:, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder: 555:

You are mistaken. I am however interested to know why you care about this topic so much.

159: 3767: 3124: 2853:

pretty early on, though it may also be too early for you. I would recommend you try out

1769:

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see

6141: 6093: 6086: 6076: 6013: 6003: 5972: 5938: 5913: 5900: 5865: 5834: 5669: 5644: 5435: 5233:

They also use "Non-Migrant Unknown". Do you think "Non-Migrant Unknown" is also a race?

5193: 5041: 4968: 4051: 3282: 3012:

if he meets one of the criteria there. And you could make an even weaker argument from

2541:

led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the

1616: 1588: 1388: 1234: 1219: 1200: 737: 327: 305: 291: 274: 256: 241: 196: 183: 151: 132: 6301:, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings. 6085:

They though you knew because they thought you had responded on the reddit thread. See

6021:

investigators could try and mail them and see what they can dig up, but that's not me.

4735:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop

4731:

Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes.

4727:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence

205:

as reference while creating and editing this article. Thank You for available this.

6570: 6346: 6177: 6122: 6025: 5985: 5954: 5920: 5880: 5849: 5775: 5758: 5703: 5678: 5610: 5603: 5588: 5530: 5488: 5450: 5449:

Dear sir, will you plz guide me how can I improve the article you recently reviewed (

5400: 5353: 5305: 5240: 5169:

the same race is not a productive use of our time. We got an encyclopedia to write.

5106: 5056: 4983: 4925: 4913: 4893: 4857: 4825: 4781: 4692: 4662: 4628: 4450: 4413: 4377: 4339: 4285: 4220: 4185: 4150: 3995: 3946: 3906: 3592: 3468: 3432: 3357: 3025: 2978: 2926: 2886: 2823: 2636:

have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also

2503:

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to

2316: 2287: 2275: 2260: 2218: 1729: 1697: 1637: 1620: 1541: 1303: 1269: 1243: 1164: 1143: 1125: 1120: 1090: 1057: 1013: 608: 557: 521: 452: 310: 261: 168: 107: 94: 5416:

Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes.

2522: 2002: 6105: 5665: 5636: 5563: 4742: 4499: 4464: 4127: 3763: 3211: 3013: 2865:, permission for which is easy to get. I would definitely recommend you start with 2858: 2462: 2435: 2365: 2330: 1974: 1273: 1004: 934: 496: 475: 437: 6267:, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections. 3660:

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.

3297:

hello brother. may i know why did u removed the information related to dew sing?

6377:, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote. 6342: 6059: 5933:

This is the first I've heard of it, and I'm still not even sure what "it" is. --

5367: 5346: 5333: 5319: 5287: 5219: 5204: 5170: 5077: 5049: 4820:

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Knowledge, as you did at

4810: 4334: 4233: 4215: 4198: 4180: 4162: 4138: 1891: 1354: 715: 520:

to talk again with you on this. I understand that you know too that the topic is

6227:

reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.

5578:

reliable sources. That is what Jeraxmoira was trying to explain in that thread.

5558:, is not that "NPP should not check for notability", but that an NPPer does not 4268: 2243: 2154:

If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the

1427: 1123:; sharpen your mind against manipulation, tribalistic tendencies and dogmatism. 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5505: 5481: 5473: 5469: 5454: 4870: 4852: 4837: 4829: 4476: 4408: 4394: 4371: 4357: 4330: 4315: 3885:, having read your comment, that it is reasonable to say that I was involved". 3794: 3790: 3414: 3193: 3178: 3009: 2991: 2973: 2958: 2949: 2560: 2342: 2125: 2078: 1847: 1829: 1746: 1723: 1710: 1692: 1675: 1632: 1624: 1611: 1610:

for guidance). Organisations need to meet the relatively stringent criteria at

1603: 1392: 1358: 1076: 1052: 1033: 989: 5749:

run a two-question RfC that also asks about expectations for article creators.

3061: 2021:. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section. 1754: 1046:

Yes, there is a chance he's notable. That's why I didn't propose deleting it.

1011:

and follow it to the letter, and please never ever use fake references again.

658: 355: 6170: 6137: 6101: 6090: 6072: 6050: 6018: 5999: 5968: 5934: 5909: 5896: 5873: 5862: 5844: 5831: 5797: 5742: 5738: 5730: 5716: 5696: 5477: 5431: 5186: 5093: 4962: 4798: 4765: 4723:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac

4657: 4472: 4046: 3976: 3924: 3890: 3505: 3277: 3207: 3020: 3005: 2877: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2854: 2850: 2605: 2556: 2338: 1628: 1607: 1443: 1238: 1196: 1008: 780: 724: 603: 466: 163: 147: 5420:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop

5412:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence

5018:

Hey you r cool and inspirational - a 15 y/o indian guy who is a newbie here

4554:

On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.

2698: 1085: 1083: 6174: 6119: 6022: 5982: 5951: 5917: 5877: 5772: 5768: 5753: 5729:

It's like I say, it all comes down to the written policies and guidelines:

5700: 5688: 5673: 5607: 5599: 5583: 5527: 5485: 5350: 5302: 5237: 5103: 5053: 4304: 3780: 3463: 3379:

nagas = hill people in sanskrit (this is 100% truth, ask someone who knows)

2913: 1650: 530: 5270: 5005: 3810: 3491: 3334:

before intervening neplas history win me in debate with u'r data/evidences

1807: 1659: 1332: 5734: 5631:

the status quo and never has been. The primary evidence for this is that

5166:

anyone who uses "we are all one race" to get out of addressing injustices

5070: 4308: 3556: 3410: 2458: 2431: 1983: 1554: 1350: 1181: 943: 773: 711: 622: 584: 534: 491: 470: 432: 362: 5123:

It's the scientific consensus. I didn't make it up; I quoted Knowledge.

4947: 4483:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3834: 3820: 3525: 3375:

What exactly is wrong information here? the information i put here are:

3232: 2662: 2349:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2155: 665: 377:

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the

6435:, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum. 6108:

policies. But evidently, I've made it worse. So, here's the full story:

5998:

It's not me, I haven't accepted payment for editing anything, ever. --

5260: 4828:. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been 4460:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

4333:

Your source does not say he's best known for it. What you are doing is

4298: 3990:

article significant? What makes up a topic area? What makes a conflict?

3657:

On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.

3426: 3173:

for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at

2490: 2394: 2326:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2876:

If you are writing new articles and want to find community, check out

2849:, well, you are not ready for adminship just yet. One can get to be a 6515:

Knowledge:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals

5266:

https://manhattan.institute/article/why-im-black-not-african-american

4816: 4441: 3809:

rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of

3152: 2307: 2009:

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The

1195:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

5811:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

4557:

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.

4038:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § X by Y in Z

4019:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § X by Y in Z

2401: 902:

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.

899:

On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.

772:: 7818 articles, as of 00:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC), according to 5408:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management

5127:

But there's a time and place for that argument. And that wasn't it.

4794: 4776: 4761: 3972: 3933: 3920: 3901: 3886: 3206:: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own 2426: 2411: 2213: 2197: 240:

and last question: Is this sites give Reliable and Notable news?

213: 5230: 5140:

why didn't you strike your first comment that implied that it was?

5825: 5521: 3802: 2158:, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers. 1875: 1384: 1357:, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to 6551:

Talk:Janata Dal (Samajbadi Prajatantrik) § Is this a real party?

6491: 6012:

No, I didn't think you were. You are not the only one affected.

4496:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2362:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1266:

Talk:Ex_Machina_(film)#On_deletion_of_paragraph_mentioning_Shaun

1259:

Talk:Ex_Machina_(film)#On_deletion_of_paragraph_mentioning_Shaun

6513:

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see

6445: 4542: 4486:

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

4454:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All

3798: 3645: 3129: 2735: 2352:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

2320:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

1924: 1623:

to build the encyclopedia. You will have to strictly adhere to

887: 490:

You, me us and the whole wikipedians who edits and contribute.

226: 128: 6393: 4133: 4110:

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

3137: 3087: 288: 6337: 6311: 3133: 2027:: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to 6459: 6363:, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections. 6359: 6192:

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

2626: 2056: 220: 6505: 6417: 6297: 6283: 6249: 6219: 4067: 3666:

Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.

553:"I understand that you know too that the topic is notable." 465:

And are you well aware about the notability guidelines for

6421:, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats. 6089:

for how Brendan chose to deal with a similar situation. -

4916:, that's exactly what I figured, and was attempting humor 2505: 4960:

For helping others on the Teahouse. You are still cool!

4391:

Knowledge:Teahouse#"best known for" in leads of biography

3550: 1946:

Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.

6243: 5568:

what the various guidelines have had to say on the issue

3143: 3081:

reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to

2699:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1141616502

2632: 2062: 2035: 2029: 6449:, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%. 6431: 6263: 6196:

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the

5752:

Totally agreed on Discord and other off-wiki venues. –

4824:, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the 4641:

solid, conclusive reason unless u know what it means.

4467:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

3155:

where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of

2537: 2530: 2333:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

1463:

Consider staying informed on project issues by putting

794:

Consider staying informed on project issues by putting

6463:, provides for a more robust alternate version of the 5418:

You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage,

4733:

You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage,

3847: