Content deleted Content added
→Whitelist suggestions: clarification sought |
formatting per WP:REDCAT |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers]] |
|||
{{Notice|<big>Wondering why [[Special:Newpages]] is yellow all of a sudden? See [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages|here for full details]] about this cool new feature.</big>}} |
|||
==How do you sign up?== |
|||
how do you sign up for the new pages patrol [[User: Physik]] |
|||
:Hi, sorry, but since your comment wasn't in a section, I put it in one for you. Thanks! --[[User:HAL2008|HAL2008]] 05:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{Rshell| |
|||
{{R from remote talk page}} |
|||
}} |
|||
==Stubs and short non-stubs== |
|||
I've come here at the suggestion of another editor on the [[WT:CRIC|WikiProject Cricket Talk page]] (section heading: "I can't win!"). The discussion there was provoked by the fact that a short biographical article I wrote about a cricketer, [[William Adshead]], had a stub tag added to it just a few minutes after I submitted it. There is a fair consensus in the WikiProject that articles such as Adshead's are not actually stubs despite their brevity: there are many cricketers about whom not that much is known, yet who pass the standards for notability (which in the case of cricketers means having played at [[first-class cricket|first-class]] or [[List A cricket|List A]] level). Adshead is one of those, and since all the available significant details are already covered in his article, it shouldn't really be classed as a stub even though it's not all that long. [[User:Loganberry|Loganberry]] ([[User talk:Loganberry|Talk]]) 21:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Volunteering == |
|||
I'm volunterringmy efforts, let me know if I should report that on a different page :) [[User:Mathiastck|Mathiastck]] 10:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== "It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log." == |
|||
Does anyone actually do this? I could cite dozens of examples of pages that got littered with tags (especially speedy tags) within minutes of creation. [[User:Morgan Wick|Morgan Wick]] 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I do it (I added it to the page). The idea is it can be [[WP:BITE|bitish]] to speedy a page created in good faith within one or two minutes of creation. Vandalism and obvious garbage I don't wait for.--[[User:Chaser|Chaser]] - [[User_talk:Chaser|T]] 17:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Does anyone else? [[User:Morgan Wick|Morgan Wick]] 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm doing that, but I just started doing new page patrol a few days ago, qualifying me as a newbie.--[[User:Evil1987|Evil1987]] 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Speedy Deletion Bot]] == |
|||
Hi I created this bot to make reports [[User:Speedy Deletion Bot/Reports|here]] of users removing speedy tag on articles they created, I'm just waiting on approval for a trial run. --'''[[User:Chris G|<font color="#B22222"><font color="#B44444">C<font color="#B66666">h<font color="#B88888">r</font>i</font>s</font></font>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Chris G|''g'']] </sup> 11:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposal to add 10 day delay into A7 CSD process == |
|||
There is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#question_about_A7 discussion] about adding a ten day delay into the A7 CSD process, since that would affect this wiki project significantly, I am posting a link to the discussion to obtain wider input from the community. --[[User:Fredrick day|Fredrick day]] 14:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Proposal to add 10 day delay into A7 CSD process |
|||
== [WikiEN-l] Anonymous page creation will be reenabled on English Wikipedia == |
|||
From the [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ mailing list]: |
|||
{{cquote|In the time since late 2005 the English Wikipedia community has grown substantially. The nearly exponential growth rate in articles we |
|||
previously experienced has stopped. Even if disabling anon page creation was beneficial then, there is no current evidence suggesting |
|||
that the change continues to be beneficial. As such, barring complications, anonymous page creation will be re-enabled on English |
|||
Wikipedia on Friday November 9th. |
|||
After a one month period, on December 9th, we will re-evaluate this decision using previously established methods (average article lifespan, rate of deletion, manual quality classification, random samplings of newly created articles, and most importantly, community discussion). If there is evidence of harm, anonymous page creation will be disabled to collect more data and provide time for discussion. If there is no significant evidence of harm, the issue will be evaluated again after six months. Further milestones and actions may be proposed at that time.}} |
|||
Original post: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html . Better optimize those speedy deletion scripts, we're going to need them a lot more. |
|||
Discussion to [[WP:VPP#Anonymous page creation will be reenabled on English Wikipedia]] please. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Patrolling enabled== |
|||
New pages patrolling seems to have been enabled. So now you can mark a page as patrolled, making it easier for new page patrollers to coordinate patrolling. [[User:Thue|Thue]] | [[User talk:Thue|talk]] 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I think this should be reflected in the text of this page as well. [[User:Huji|huji]]—[[User_talk:Huji|<small>TALK</small>]] 08:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Learning to rate new articles == |
|||
I've been a vandal patroller for a long time. Now I think I'll help out with New pages patrol - but it's a lot harder. I've read [[WP:CSD]], etc. but many articles are judgment calls and judgment is something that takes time to develop. What I'd like to do is list some pages that I patrolled and ask the experts why they rated {{tl|db-bio}}, {{tl|notability}}, or a pass. Here's the first one: [[Ralph Pulitzer]]. At the very least it should get an {{tl|unreferenced}}, but does it deserve db-bio or a notability tag or any other tags? [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] ([[User talk:Sbowers3|talk]]) 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Ralph Pulitzer]] (1879-1939) son of newspaper magnate, etc. makes it very likely there is reliable sources material for the article. No A7. -- [[User:Jreferee|<font face="Kristen ITC" color="2A52BE">'''Jreferee '''</font>]][[User_talk:Jreferee|<font color="007BA7"> t</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Jreferee|<font color="007FFF">c</font>]] 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Here's the second: [[Pearl Slaghoople]], a fictional character from Fred Flintstone. I would have given it a CSD-A7 but another new pages patroller apparently accepted it (it wasn't marked yellow). Wikipedia has a LOT of articles about TV shows - are ALL of them [[WP:N|notable]]? [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] ([[User talk:Sbowers3|talk]]) 03:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I would CSD-A7 [[Pearl Slaghoople]]. -- [[User:Jreferee|<font face="Kristen ITC" color="2A52BE">'''Jreferee '''</font>]][[User_talk:Jreferee|<font color="007BA7"> t</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Jreferee|<font color="007FFF">c</font>]] 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Is [[William Donner Roosevelt]] notable? |
|||
:The speedy delete question is not notable ([[WP:N]]), the speedy delete question is whether the article lists reasonable assertion of "importance/significance." William Donner Roosevelt is not a speedy delete candidate. -- [[User:Jreferee|<font face="Kristen ITC" color="2A52BE">'''Jreferee '''</font>]][[User_talk:Jreferee|<font color="007BA7"> t</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Jreferee|<font color="007FFF">c</font>]] 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Should I just go ahead and mark things for CSD knowing that someone else will review in case I am wrong? [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] ([[User talk:Sbowers3|talk]]) 03:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes. No other way to learn. I usually pick up the candidates on this page: [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]]. -- [[User:Jreferee|<font face="Kristen ITC" color="2A52BE">'''Jreferee '''</font>]][[User_talk:Jreferee|<font color="007BA7"> t</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Jreferee|<font color="007FFF">c</font>]] 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:No. You should be trying to improve the encyclopedia. Sometimes that means deleting stuff, but usually it means finding references (which won't always be found on the first Google page) and adding information. [[User:DanBealeCocks|<span style="color:orange;background:black; ">Dan Beale-Cocks</span>]] 18:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Filtering Special:Newpages == |
|||
I've set up an RSS feed to filter only video-game related articles from the new pages feed. Maybe other WikiProject want to do the same. See: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#New articles RSS feed]]. <small><font color="AE1C28">[[User:Jacoplane|JACO]]</font><font color="#21468B">[[User_talk:Jacoplane|PLANE]]</font> • 2007-12-17 22:19</small> |
|||
== India is one of the worst culprits for spamming the English Wikipedia == |
|||
A high number of adverts, copyright infringements and incoherent pages are obviously related to India. It can be understood given the country's massive population and the fact that the people with Internet access are very likely to understand English, but on the whole they definitely seem less likely to understand Wikipedia's purpose than those in places such as Europe or the USA - it seems to be a sad fact. This is certainly not to say that no spam comes from Europe or the USA - very far from it - but India is probably the country that generates the greatest number of these types of pages when I'm looking over new pages patrol. Thoughts?--'''[[User:HisSpaceResearch|h i s]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:HisSpaceResearch|s p a c e]]''</sup> <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/HisSpaceResearch|r e s e a r c h]]'''</sub> 13:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:My experience is that the kind of spammish new pages we get ebbs and flows with the time of day, who happens to be actively creating pages, etc. But assuming the section title is true, so what? What difference does it make except that perhaps some of our Indian editors are better placed to judge whether something qualifies as A7 or should go through another process?--[[User:Chaser|chaser]] - [[User_talk:Chaser|t]] 10:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Essay that touches on New pages patrol== |
|||
Newpage patrollers may be interested in the essay [[WP:WTAF|Write the Article First]], which touches on NPP. Comments/changes/additions are of course welcome. [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== View oldest non-patrolled? == |
|||
By experimenting with the offset parameter in the url I discovered that there are more than 14,000 pages that have not been patrolled - and who knows how many older than one month. Could we get an "oldest" button to make it easier to patrol old articles before they disappear unpatrolled from the list of new pages? [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] ([[User talk:Sbowers3|talk]]) 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Moving to VPR. [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] ([[User talk:Sbowers3|talk]]) 03:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Help for the Spanish wiki == |
|||
Hello fellows from the English wikipedia, I work hard patroling new pages in the Spanish wikipedia and have 2 questions for you. Since, your community is much bigger than ours, maybe you came up with tools that could help us, you are probably top hi-tech here. I a looking for a way to filter the authors of new pages. I do rely on a lot of authors and don't really need to double check their new pages. It would be great to filter the new pages with the authors than I don't include in a trusted authors page. The another thing I was wondering is if you have discovered a way to find out which wikipedia user (if any) is behind an IP address. You can also use me as link to the Spanish wikipedia in the case that you need anything and don't know whom to talk. If possible, please drop me an answer [http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_Discusi%C3%B3n:Poco_a_poco HERE] as well. |
|||
Thanks a lot in advance, all the best, --[[User:Little by little|Little by little]] ([[User talk:Little by little|talk]]) 22:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Bite the newbies and get rewarded with an adminship == |
|||
Over at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship]], new page patrols are being discussed. I keep coming across things like the following. The article titled [[Bochica]] was tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that it's "patent nonsense", then deleted on the grounds that there's not enough context to identify the subject. '''That is irresponsible newbie-biting. That is willful stupidity.''' I had never heard of the topic, but found hits on Wikipedia and Google right away. Apparently the two users who did this didn't bother. That's how new pages are getting patrolled. I restored the page. |
|||
: |
|||
Why must new page patrolling be done only by people who are idiots because they choose to be idiots? [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*I gently agree with some of your comments - some people seem to be a bit over-zealous when patrolling new pages or new usernames. There should be some guidelines about deleting pages or reporting new users - at least use the (Welcome) template first unless the new user is making clearly bad-faith contributions. [[User:DanBealeCocks|<span style="color:orange;background:black; ">Dan Beale-Cocks</span>]] 18:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:This thread is more active at[[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Bite_the_newbies_and_get_rewarded_with_an_adminship|WT:RFA]]. Please go there so as to avoid forking the discussion. Thanks!--[[User:Chaser|chaser]] - [[User_talk:Chaser|t]] 18:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I'll comment here, because my comments are directed at people doing new page patrol and not people going for adminship. [[User:DanBealeCocks|<span style="color:orange;background:black; ">Dan Beale-Cocks</span>]] 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Here's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanotechnology_and_medicine&rcid=206459501 an example] of odd tagging. The tag says "This does not include poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material", thus the article is inappropriately tagged, and the tagger did not bother to contact the articles author. [[User:DanBealeCocks|<span style="color:orange;background:black; ">Dan Beale-Cocks</span>]] 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Commenting here because I am making a suggestion for this project page, rather than commenting on practice or behaviour. I see one of the articles mentioned as inappropriately tagged for speedy deletion at [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Bite_the_newbies_and_get_rewarded_with_an_adminship|WT:RFA]] was the article entitled [[Bochica]], which was actually listed as a [[Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics/B5|missing encyclopaedia article]] ( presumably because the EB has an article on the subject). Would it be useful to have a few more hints on the project page including something like: "Even if the article appears to be nonsense, or notability is not asserted, if there is any doubt consider checking "What links here" to see if the article has been requested? If so, make a special effort to find references or otherwise improve the article in order to avoid the article being inappropriately tagged. --[[User:Boson|Boson]] ([[User talk:Boson|talk]]) 22:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Good idea. I'll try to keep that in mind even if it doesn't get to the project page. [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] ([[User talk:Sbowers3|talk]]) 23:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=== Fictional numbers, policies, etc. === |
|||
I agree with Boson, and I proposed that policy a few months ago and got shot down. The occasion was the idiotic proposed speedy deletion of the venerable article [[MathWorld]] as allegedly "blatant advertising". It was created when Wikipedia was unknown and the MathWorld website was universally known and respected, so the idea that it was intended as advertising is laughable, and there was no link to the company allegedly being advertised. '''Nearly 1500 pages linked to it!''' Most of those links were added by respectable professionals with no interest in advertising MathWorld, but acutely aware (as who is not?) of its renown. '''So I proposed a policy''' at [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion]]: CHECK FOR LINKS TO THE ARTICLE. If there are more than 1000 of them, as in that case, check out the situation before speedily deleting. |
|||
: |
|||
I keep seeing good article tagged for speedy deletion thoughtlessly. So I raised this issue. As a result, I found out that there is such a thing as "new page patrols", and that this present page with policies on it exist. I have been told repeatedly that 90% or 95% of pages marked for speedy deletions really should be speedily deleted. '''I think those numbers are just fiction. They're simply made up.''' Maybe someone counts the cases where someone complains and is proved right. How do we know there aren't MANY good article speedily deleted whose newbie authors then go away disenchanted with Wikipedia and are never heard from again? |
|||
: |
|||
The answer would have to be some kind of systematic patrolling of the patrols. I don't know how best to do that efficiently. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree that some speedy deletion is wrong, or borderline. THere are a few occasions when PRODding would have been better. Good luck trying to get some numbers on it though. [[User:DanBealeCocks|<span style="color:orange;background:black; ">Dan Beale-Cocks</span>]] 08:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Ahhhh ... y'know, I've been commenting for a while now on AfD my wonderment at some of these lightning AfD nominations, saying "What, is there a prize for being the one who gets the most articles deleted in three minutes or less?" Now I find out that this is true. For my money, for anything less than a blatant CSD candidate, there's no way any editor alive can take the time to assess the notability and verifiability less than ninety seconds after creation, and I will aggressively Oppose any RfA candidate who engages in this practice. Heck, I would be pleased as punch if a new rule was put in '''forbidding''' filing an AfD on anything short of a [[WP:BLP]] violation within 72 hours of an article's creation. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, not treating [[WP:NPP]] as a bloody competitive video game, and it would be a good thing if more experienced admins clued in the more rabid bombardiers. [[User:RGTraynor|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> RGTraynor </span>''']] 17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== "Watching" this page == |
|||
Is there a way to "watch" the new pages page, or a simple way to click there, other than manually typing in the address, or clicking help and searching for new page patrolling? [[User:Tool2Die4|Tool2Die4]] ([[User talk:Tool2Die4|talk]]) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Are you asking about [[Special:NewPages]]? No, you can't watch it, but there are two easy ways to get to it. On the left side of just about every page, under the Search box, you can click Special pages, then click New pages. Or you can use your browser to make a bookmark to the NewPages page. [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] ([[User talk:Sbowers3|talk]]) 01:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I usually use the link in the NPP userbox on my user page as a quick link to Special:Newpages. (Side note: I also created a similar box of my own with a link to the deletion log, as I frequently troll that page looking for blue links.) --[[User:Finngall|<font color="green"><b>Finngall</b></font>]] [[User Talk:Finngall|<font color="#D4A017"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== To encourage not biting newbies... == |
|||
Could people please make sure to use the {{tl|welcome}} and {{tl|firstarticle}} templates instead of the usual speedy warnings when creating user-talk pages? I tend to look through [[WP:LSD]] for badly-tagged speedies when I've got the time, and I've noticed that few of the users who've created these pages have been welcomed. Their talk pages are usually just a single {{tl|nn-warn}} or {{tl|spam-warn}} or something like that. The first interaction these users are having is with the [[WP:NPP]] and it doesn't appear that they're being notified about the speedies courteously. [[WP:NPP#Being nice]] already suggests welcoming new users, but I'd suggest also adding that, when creating a user talk page with a warning template, the {{tl|firstarticle}} template should be used. Thanks. --<font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font> <small>([[User talk:Lifebaka|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lifebaka|Contribs]])</small> 22:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I strongly agree with this. Some editors sign up with what appears to be a role account, and then either create articles about their organisation, or add links to their website to relevant articles. They're clearly violating several important WP policies, and that needs to stop. But huge numbers of potentially useful editors are being driven away (and blocked) when a quick explanation of COI and role account policy could turn them into useful editors. [[User:DanBealeCocks|<span style="color:orange;background:black; ">Dan Beale-Cocks</span>]] 15:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::People don't seem to be giving any time either, as suggested by the project page, as many articles are being csd'd 1 minute after creation. [[User:Xenocidic|xenocidic]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Template to help new page patrollers == |
|||
A lot of people are tagging new pages with CSD:A7 minutes after they are created. I am very lazy and was hoping there was a template to add to these peoples talk pages to suggest they patrol from the bottom up and not bite the newbies. [[User:Azazyel|Azazyel]] ([[User talk:Azazyel|talk]]) 10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreed, per my comment above. [[User:Xenocidic|xenocidic]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 22:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Reporting House== |
|||
There have been three speedy delete tags for spam placed on the article [[Reporting House]] today, two by me and a third by another editor.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reporting_House&oldid=207171838] All three have been removed by the writer of the piece. (I also removed two fake references on the page, which have so far remained deleted). Is there anyone this should be reported to? --'''[[User:seahamlass|<font color="purple">seahamlass</font>]]''' 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Hide patrolled pages? == |
|||
Is it just me that no longer has this option? I still have the hide bots option on [[Special:newpages]]. [[User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock]] ([[User talk:Paulbrock|talk]]) 02:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:seems to have fixed itself! [[User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock]] ([[User talk:Paulbrock|talk]]) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Spotting page recereations == |
|||
I've noticed some pages have tags on their initial creation e.g. [[Dan Lucas]], which has a tag dating from 6 months before creation. Now this to me says a recreated page, but I can't find it under [[Special:Log]] under Dan Lucas or Dan lucas. Should I be looking somewhere else to see if it's been deleted in the past, or am I missing something? [[User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock]] ([[User talk:Paulbrock|talk]]) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Flag templates for deletion warnings == |
|||
Hello, fellow editors ... |
|||
In an effort to deal with the problem of proposed deletions and speedy deletions that occur Too Quickly, I have created a '''[[:Template:Flag-templates#Flag templates for deletion warnings|Protocol to minimize friction from proposed deletions and speedy deletions]]''' to flag ''dubious'' articles and possibly improve them, or else delete them according to the established policies. |
|||
As an example, I have flagged {{la|Dan Lucas}} using the [[WP:FLAG-BIO]] protocol ... I have placed messages on both the article's and the author's talk pages, and will check it again next week. |
|||
I invite any comments or feedback from you about these templates and the protocols, which are designed to be used as "stencils" or "templates" in a second browser tab for easy copy&paste while editing ... so far, the biggest complaint has been, "''It's too complicated,''" to which my reply has been, "''Well, then just forget you ever saw it, and Move On.''" [[emoticon|:-)]] |
|||
Happy Editing! — '''{{#if:72.75.78.69|{{User|72.75.78.69}}|[[Special:Contributions/72.75.78.69|72.75.78.69]] ([[User talk:72.75.78.69|talk]])}}''' <sub>08:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)</sub> |
|||
:Interesting, though a bit tricky to get my head round on first glance. So as I see it - there would now be an explanation of prod/speedy on the article's talk page and notify the user before moving onto speedy? Would you want to add [[Template:Flag-editor]], then [[Template:prodwarning]]/[[Template:adw]] as well? And presumably this would only be used when you weren't sure about deletion, or would it be used all the time? |
|||
:Speedy criteria are supposed to be applied on sight as I understand it, the point is the article is unsalvageable. Prods are different but at least there's 5 days of recovery time available. The easiest way to not bite the newbies is to patrol pages from the START of the list not the pages that are only 2 minutes old and under construction. [[User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock]] ([[User talk:Paulbrock|talk]]) 10:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::The idea is to ''flag'' it (with [[Template:Flag-editor]] '''and''' [[Template:Flag-article]]), wait a few days, and then see how it looks ... if you decide ''then'' to PROD or CSD, then you would also place a [[Template:prodwarning]]/[[Template:adw]] as a courtesy ... also, if a PROD is contested, it should be documented with a [[:Template:Oldprodfull]] so that it won't be PRODed again. |
|||
::If it's a blatantly obvious "Kill it before it grows" (unsalvageable) then the courtesy message ''after'' the tagging is sufficient, and you don't need the protocol ... it's not for ''every'' article, just the ones that ''might'' be [[WP:COI]], [[WP:SPAM]], or similar unsubstantiated self-promotion. |
|||
::See the talk page for {{la|Daryn Jones}} for an example of an article that was ''improved'' by flagging it ... so it's only for the "potentially salvageable." —[[Special:Contributions/72.75.78.69|72.75.78.69]] ([[User talk:72.75.78.69|talk]]) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:You might also want to take a look at {{tl|Hasty}}, which deals with hasty tagging after the fact. Cheers. --<font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font> <small>([[User talk:Lifebaka|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lifebaka|Contribs]])</small> 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Thnx! Never knew it was there ... I'll try to work it into the most appropriate place(s). —[[Special:Contributions/72.75.78.69|72.75.78.69]] ([[User talk:72.75.78.69|talk]]) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==What's that template?== |
|||
Help!! ... What is the name of the template that says, "''This article was deleted by CSD or PROD, but it has been restored.''"?? ... I saw it on some article, and I want to add its usage to the [[WP:FLAG-PROTOCOL]]s ... Happy Editing! — '''{{#if:72.75.78.69|{{User|72.75.78.69}}|[[Special:Contributions/72.75.78.69|72.75.78.69]] ([[User talk:72.75.78.69|talk]])}}''' <sub>16:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)</sub> |
|||
== patrol whitelist bot == |
|||
Hi, I have been running a bot of [[s:|Wikisource]] that automatically marks new pages as patrolled if they meet certain criteria. It has been suggested to me that I run the bot on enWP as well, so I have initiated a request. Please comment at [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JVbot 2]]. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 10:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Flag templates redux == |
|||
Hello again ... |
|||
I have modified [[:Template:Flag-article]] and [[:Template:Flag-editor]] so that (a) failure to "subst:" generates an error, (b) offering to assist in the message is [[:Template:Flag-article#Optional parameter|optional]], and (c) they populate [[:Category:Flagged articles]] and [[:Category:Flagged editors]] ... any feedback? |
|||
Happy Editing! — '''{{#if:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome|{{User|The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome}}|[[User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome|The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome|talk]])}}''' <sub>10:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)</sub> |
|||
== Oldest unpatrolled pages == |
|||
Further to the thread up above, unpatrolled pages remain flagged as such for 720 hours, or 30 days. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&dir=prev&limit=250&hidepatrolled=1&hidebots=1 This link] shows the end of the queue. |
|||
There are currently unpatrolled pages going back a month. In other words, they are expiring from the queue. Many are legitimate articles that deserve to stay, but there are many that have never had another set of eyes on them, slipped through with only a bot tagging or so, that can be speedied, prodded or AfD'd. |
|||
Can some NP patrollers drop in on the other end from time to time? A concerted effort will reduce the backlog and ensure every new page gets patrolled by at least one experienced user. There'll be a lot less friction, and no accusations of biting new contributors as they'll have be given more days to get things in order. Thanks. --[[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreed. I really don't see the point in patrolling 3-minute old pages which may well be in the midst of further editing, when there are 20 and 30 day old stubs that need attention. Admittedly by a lot of the obviously unsuitable stuff has long gone by then, but like Stephen says, that end of the queue still needs attention. I wonder as well if there's any way to automatically tick off the pages which have been tagged or afded/proded/speedied? From my understanding, editors have to explicitly click "mark as patrolled", which only appears if you go to the page from New Pages...[[User:Paulbrock|Paulbrock]] ([[User talk:Paulbrock|talk]]) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm pretty sure there is a bot who does this. At least, there was. [[User:Plrk|Plrk]] ([[User talk:Plrk|talk]]) 11:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Patrolling == |
|||
I imagine that patrolling my own articles is out of the question? What about talk pages I create, ie adding templates for Wikiprojects/assessments? Typically, talk pages do not appear on the default New Pages log, so often go unnoticed. Do they even need patrolling? -- <small><font color="0000C8">THE</font> <font color="black">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/The dark lord trombonator|'''DARK LORD''']]</font> <font color="0000C8">[[User talk:The dark lord trombonator|TROMBONATOR]]</font></small> 04:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Issues with a patroller== |
|||
There is a "recent changes patroller" named Rami who is uncivil and should be monitored. I believe he is letting the power go to his head. He threatens and he appears to be omniscient. He is in Israel and does not want to change dates and add events on the Jonathan Pollard page which are factually correct. i am giving up on your website. I don't like being bullied by unknown creepy people, especially when i have specific facts to improve a page. Kindly refer to my messages in "my talk" to a supervisor for review. You have some dangerous people "volunteering". I'll stick to published encyclopedias for the time being. The Pollard Page is an example of omissions and deletions. |
|||
This website appears to be excellent for movies,& celebrity trivia which is now the only reason i will take your word for anything. |
|||
[[User:Furtive admirer|Furtive admirer]] ([[User talk:Furtive admirer|talk]]) 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::First, the [[WP:RCP|recent changes patrol]] isn't here, but I'll attempt to field this anyway. It appears that some of your edits to [[Jonathan Pollard]] are somewhat less than useful (using the diff given by [[User:Rami R]]), and he is correct to warn you about them. I suggest you take a look at [[WP:V|our policies on verifiability]] and [[WP:OR|original research]] as well as our [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons policy]], then hopefully you will see what is wrong with adding those sorts of statements to articles. Some of your assumptions about Rami R are also way off base, we are all volunteers here and [[WP:AGF|to assume otherwise]] is a gross violation of [[WP:ATTACK|some of our behavioural guidelines]]. I suggest you take some time and cool off, then go back to editing somewhere else. There are 2.3 million articles on the English Wikipedia, I'm sure you can find something interesting where you won't run into Rami. If problems continue ''after you have moved on'', I suggest taking the issues to [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. Cheers. --<font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font> <small>([[User talk:Lifebaka|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lifebaka|Contribs]])</small> 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
thanx 4 the rsvp. i really have had enough. this is very time consuming and offers no personal satisfaction. it is not like i want any credit, just the facts published correctly and not sourced out with propaganda written as 'ostensible fact" in articles in national magagzines. i'll let someone else take the reins. |
|||
thanx again. |
|||
[[User:Furtive admirer|Furtive admirer]] ([[User talk:Furtive admirer|talk]]) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Notification of speedy deletion tags== |
|||
Hi. There is a current discussion at [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#.22consider_notifying_the_page.27s_creator.22.2C_redux|talk:CSD]] about the possibility of strengthening the encouragement of CSD taggers to notify creators. Please feel free to join in there. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Redirects? == |
|||
Apologies in advance if this question has been asked before. It appears that new redirects do not appear on [[Special:NewPages]] (can someone confirm?). Since there is a [[WP:CSD]] reason (R3) that allows for speedy deletion of certain redirects, but only if they are newly created, it would seem valuable to patrol new redirects as well (either on [[Special:NewPages]] or through a different mechanism like a separate Special page). I have run into a number of cases where I would have liked to have deleted the redirect under R3, but since there was no way to pick it up on pator, I missed the window and had to go through the much greater PITA RfD process. Thoughts? [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== New essay about spam, business articles, and notability. == |
|||
Greetings all. As an occasional new page patroller and longtime contributor, I recently wrote an essay about the use and misuse of speedy deletion, entitled "[[User:Eastlaw/Not all business articles are spam|Not all business articles are spam]]". Please, read it and give me your feedback, either on the essay's talk page or my own user talk page. I am eager to hear your opinions about this subject. --[[User:Eastlaw|Eastlaw]] ([[User talk:Eastlaw|talk]]) 05:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Private equity articles == |
|||
I wanted to bring your attention to some of the work we, the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance/PrivateEquity|Private Equity Task Force]], are doing in the [[private equity]] and [[venture capital]] universe. We know that for most Wikipedians it is difficult to discern a notable PE or VC firm from the hundreds if not thousands of non-notable firms. |
|||
We have created a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance/PrivateEquity#Private equity firm articles to be created|list of some of the most notable private equity firms not currently on Wikipedia]]. This is not a comprehensive list but should you notice a firm on that list we would ask that you give the firm the benefit of the doubt from a notability perspective and quickly alert the PE Task Force so we can help rescue a troubled article. Also, we have collected some [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance/PrivateEquity#Resources|PE-related resources]] and some thoughts on what to look for in discerning [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance/PrivateEquity#Establishing Notability|whether a firm may be notable]]. If you want to discuss any new articles or stubs we can help with any of those discussions and would ask to be alerted to any proposed AfD debates. |
|||
Our goals are : |
|||
* Protect and nurture notable PE related articles |
|||
* Prevent Wikipedia from clogging up with non-notable articles |
|||
* Encouraging new Wikipedians with an interest in finance and private equity |
|||
Thanks |
|||
<font color="#3950A5" size="1">|►</font> [[User:Urbanrenewal|<font color="#000070"><b>ϋrban</b></font><font color="#4D4D4D">яenewaℓ</font>]] • [[User talk:Urbanrenewal|<font size="0" color="#BFA137">TALK</font>]] <font color="#3950A5" size="1">◄|</font> 14:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==NPP: guideline for Categorization needs a minor modification== |
|||
Problem: There are thousands of uncategorized pages in system as of now and they are sort of lost pages and remain so till someone hits them accidentally and puts it in proper category after that chances of page improvement/maintenance improves. <br> The current guideline says ''either tag it with 'uncat' or try to find a category for it'', can this be modified a bit to say either find and add a category for it (may be [[:Category:Fundamental]] category) or ask page creator to do that (since page creater is a registered Wikipedian so this shouldn't be tough part). Another thing that could be done is create fundamental uncat-categories on lines of [[:Category:Fundamental]] and assign the page to that (I would prefer former approach). Pl note I am not saying adding 'stub category' as I find it as good as 'uncat' category and both leads to lost pages and page creation time is the best time to tackle this problem (nip it in the bud). [[User:Vjdchauhan|Vjdchauhan]] ([[User talk:Vjdchauhan|talk]]) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC) (my main contribution on WP is related to page categorization) |
|||
== Reviewing tool == |
|||
While reviewing talk pages, I see many semi-automatic creation of rating page. Is there a way to tag all of them automatically, Is there a tool\bot that doing so? --[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 22:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== NEW user association of [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Patrolist_Wikipedians Wikimedia] to represent interests of all people who patrol in ALL wiki's == |
|||
Greetings, ALL! |
|||
For those of you who are familiar with [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:User_associations Wikipedian associations], specifically the ones on [http://meta.wikimedia.org Wikimedia], I have started a new one for people who patrol wiki's or are interested in patrolling. For those not familiar with these associations, drop by and check it out. It's open to all people so come and see what you want it to become. Feel free to start new pages when you get there!! |
|||
More information can be found [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Patrolist_Wikipedians here]. |
|||
Thanks! |
|||
[[User:Fr33kman|fr33kman]] ([[User talk:Fr33kman|talk]]) 03:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
'''''PS: This is NOT spam or an inappropriate post it is about a genuine new Wikipedian association on wikimedia.org!''''' |
|||
---- |
|||
== Special:Log/patrol == |
|||
On the Swedish Wikipedia, [[:sv:Special:Log/patrol]] lists the version number of each revision patrolled - even though it is only new pages (like here).[[:en:Special:Log/patrol]] does not. Does anyone know what MediaWiki system message to edit to remove this? [[User:Plrk|Plrk]] ([[User talk:Plrk|talk]]) 15:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Never mind, I found it: [[MediaWiki:Patrol-log-line]]. [[User:Plrk|Plrk]] ([[User talk:Plrk|talk]]) 15:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Bot to help index pages that slip through == |
|||
I have made a bot request ([[Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 22#Index of unpatrolled, expired "New Pages"]]) that, if created, would help new page patrollers manage the backlog of unpatrolled pages. You may want to voice your ideas at the bot request. — [[User:Twas Now|'''Twas ''Now''''']] <small>( [[User talk:Twas Now|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Twas Now|contribs]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Twas Now|e-mail]] )</small> 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I think that could be a good idea. I know that a lot of them are by newbies that don't know their way around, but the backlog of ridiculous new pages is getting... well ridiculous! We must come up with a better system for dealing with this. [[User:Skeletor 0|Skeletor 0]] ([[User talk:Skeletor 0|talk]]) 18:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposal to limit the creation of new articles == |
|||
I've written down some thoughts about a proposal to limit the creation of new articles, while allowing anonymous users to create articles (which is not the case now). Your thoughts and comments will be highly valued, see [[User:Plrk/On the creation of articles]]. [[User:Plrk|Plrk]] ([[User talk:Plrk|talk]]) 21:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Automatic patrolling after a tag is added == |
|||
I don't know if this is the best place to ask this, but I'll carry on regardless! Myself and [[User:Otherlleft]] wondered whether it would be possible for the software to be updated somehow so that if a tag is added (eg a speedy, PROD, XfD, notability etc) the article is automatically marked as being patrolled. The reasoning behind this is that when I NPP, I (and I'm sure many others) often find an article that hasn't been patrolled, but has been tagged. |
|||
It may be better suited to a bot to go through unpatrolled pages looking for a tag, and then marking it as patrolled, but I know nothing about scripting such things. |
|||
Any thoughts or comments? --[[User:Ged UK|Ged UK]] ([[User talk:Ged UK|talk]]) 11:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:There is a somewhat similar bot already; see [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JVbot 2]] and [[User:JVbot]]. Contact [[User:Jayvdb|the author]] and ask if that functionality could be added! (You could also point him to this discussion, of course.) I think it's a great idea. [[User:Plrk|Plrk]] ([[User talk:Plrk|talk]]) 14:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks! --[[User:Ged UK|Ged UK]] ([[User talk:Ged UK|talk]]) 14:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:My bot could do this without much trouble; I would probably implement it as a second whitelist of tags that would indicate the page has been sufficiently "acted upon". Before I implement it, it would be nice to see some discussion and agreement on some tags which mean a page no longer needs more NPP eyes on it. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 15:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Brilliant! Let's see what we can come up with then, then I'll get back to you. --[[User:Ged UK|Ged UK]] ([[User talk:Ged UK|talk]]) 15:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Whitelist suggestions=== |
|||
My intial thoughts are: |
|||
*any of the CSD tags (eg <nowiki>{{db-bio}}</nowiki> or any other at [[Wikipedia:CSD]]) |
|||
*<nowiki>{{advert}}</nowiki> |
|||
*<nowiki>{{likeresume}}</nowiki> |
|||
*<nowiki>{{notability}}</nowiki> |
|||
*<nowiki>{{PROD}}</nowiki> |
|||
*<nowiki>{{afd1}}</nowiki> |
|||
I'm sure there are plenty of others, however, sometimes articles are started with tags included, like wikify or unreferenced, because the author knows that work needs to be done, but can't do it themselves. --[[User:Ged UK|Ged UK]] ([[User talk:Ged UK|talk]]) 15:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:A full list of CSD tags can be found at [[:Category:Speedy deletion templates]]. Cheers. <font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font>[[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 19:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I am in full support for this suggestion. Also can be auto patrol articles which are created by well - established editors? --[[User:Anshuk|Anshuk]] ([[User talk:Anshuk|talk]]) 00:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: I guess the problem with that is settling on a definition of 'well-established'. I can think of a few editors who've been here for years but still create what I would call less than high-quality articles and edits. I think that the effort of working out a list of criteria or of users would be more hassle than it's worth. --[[User:Ged UK|Ged UK]] ([[User talk:Ged UK|talk]]) 07:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: i like it, an excellent idea. not sure if advert indicates sufficiently acted upon tho. [[User:Mission Fleg|Mission Fleg]] ([[User talk:Mission Fleg|talk]]) 03:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I've no problem with taking out advert, though clearly keep the speedy-spam. --[[User:Ged UK|Ged UK]] ([[User talk:Ged UK|talk]]) 07:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:All deletion nominations should be considered as having the article patrolled - CSD, PROD and AFD. [[User:Plrk|Plrk]] ([[User talk:Plrk|talk]]) 10:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Just those, or others as well? --[[User:Ged UK|Ged UK]] ([[User talk:Ged UK|talk]]) 11:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 18:13, 22 February 2024
Redirect to: