m Signing comment by Professionalmoving - "→Professional Moving & Relocation Company Abu Dhabi, Dubai And Qatar: new section" |
|||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:: I think we have a steady stream of candidates, but apparently they work all together slowlier than the backlog grows. I am sure {{u|Kudpung}} has some insight.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 10:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC) |
:: I think we have a steady stream of candidates, but apparently they work all together slowlier than the backlog grows. I am sure {{u|Kudpung}} has some insight.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 10:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
{{collapsebottom}} |
{{collapsebottom}} |
||
== Professional Moving & Relocation Company Abu Dhabi, Dubai And Qatar == |
|||
Professional Moving & Relocation in Abu Dhabi,Qatar & Dubai. Delight International Movers offers best International and Domestic Moving & Relocation services for residential and commercial clients. |
|||
Delight International Movers |
|||
Musaffah Ind. Area 13, Plot 6, |
|||
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. |
|||
Zip/PostalCode : 51634 |
|||
Mobile Number : 971556095265 |
|||
Phone : 97126902900 |
|||
Fax : 97126902928 |
|||
Toll free : 800 1616 |
|||
Email Id : info@delightmovers.com |
|||
Website : http://www.delightmovers.com |
|||
Keywords: professional Moving & Relocation, domestic movers, professional packers and movers in dubai, professional packers and movers in abu dhabi, professional packers and movers service, professional packers and movers uae, professional local movers <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Professionalmoving|Professionalmoving]] ([[User talk:Professionalmoving#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Professionalmoving|contribs]]) 07:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 07:42, 2 April 2017
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
/patrolled pages for discussion on development of the special patrol page (inactive). |
This page has archives. Sections older than 91 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Instead of genuinely spam articles, why notable articles are taken to WP:AFD?
I don't patrol pages everyday. Still on an average, always I managed to find 5-7 WP:FAILN articles, some of which were completely spam. Nobody noticed them. I am giving only few examples, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopma.in, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamanti (Company), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Bishop, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baba Teja Nath.
Almost all of my AFDs and prodded articles were nominated weeks after article creation. Inspite of having many patrollers these articles don't get noticed, and no one will ever find them.
Sometimes notable articles are tagged as "This article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline", as the article is unsourced.
Some WP:FAILN articles with fake references and blogs as reference, twitter, facebook and youtube pages as reference, which actually have zero notability, are not tagged with notability concerns or nominated for deletion. As I found with Rebecca-Maria-Euphemia Castranova, Tan Songyun.
While notable articles are sent to AFD, as: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess and the Pony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quick Heal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roop Kumar Rathod. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- As the editnotice on this page says "This page is only for users discussing the design and content of the tutorials." Cabayi (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- You may have noticed that we have a backlog of 13,000 articles in the NPP feed. The oldest are from September. It's likely nobody else has seen those articles and this is exactly why we need more patrollers. As for why notable topics are nominated – people make mistakes. – Joe (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Scope of this talk page
The edit notice on this page says: "This page is only for users discussing the design and content of the tutorials." Where do we expect general discussion of the New pages patrol process to take place? You will see from above that there are a number of editors with questions on the process. Perhaps the discussion of the tutorial ought to be moved to a talk page specifically named for that topic? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- second line of the notice: "General discussion for REVIEWERS takes place at Reviewer Talk." Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, of course I can read that. But what about discussion for the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who don't have the new reviewer privilege? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- At a quick glance, hovering over the signatures, popups shows 3 posts by non-patrollers. There's nothing preventing, or even discouraging, comments by other editors. If you see nuances of inhospitality please fix them. Cabayi (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- ... which isn't to say that the profusion of talk pages couldn't do with some clarity. Personally I'd prefer some rationalisation rather than further profusion. Cabayi (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
RFC on hasty tagging at VP
There is a pending RFC at the Village Pump (proposals) to require a 30 minute delay after article creation before tagging an article for deletion under A7 and perhaps other criteria. Individuals interested in that topic should opine there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
RfC on the scrapping of the AfC process
There is an RfC at WT:Drafts asking if the AfC process should be scrapped altogether, which participants of this project may be interested in. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Getting a longer backlog again
Discussion moved to WT:NPR
|
---|
Now we have 15500 and it is steadily growing for the whole month. I think we never had it below 12000.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
|