Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Hi Kj cheetham,

I'm reaching out to you as you recently gave me feedback on an edit that I made. I just created an article for Colin Leonard and was informed that it is being discussed for a speedy deletion. Can you check it out and let me know what I need to do on my end to keep it up?

Thank you so much, Landplane123 (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)landplane321[reply]

Landplane123, thanks for your message. I'll have a better look later, but wanted to note that's not a speedy deletion discussion, it's a regular AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Leonard which lasts at least 7 days typically, and others will comment as well before anything happens. Also note that pointing out that other similar articles exist often isn't a valid arguments as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for checking it out. I added an award as well as Colin Leonard placing #2 on Jaxsta's top 50 mastering engineers of 2022. Hopefully that will add to his notability.

Best, Landplane123 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)landplane321[reply]

I'm not familar enough with music notability guidelines to comment on the AfD really (beyond referring to WP:GNG), but adding references showing award certainly does no harm for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kj cheetham,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page 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.

Redirect autopatrol: 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 here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. 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 beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, 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.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. 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 draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your of this statement over at WP:RMT. Note that if the OP has set "discuss=yes" in the proposal, it implies that he/she is in favour of taking it to RM; there's no need to seek further input before proceeding. 162 etc. (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

162 etc., thanks for your message and the clarification. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

162 etc. P.S. I'd only started doing it fairly recently after seeing someone else was, but can't remember who offhand. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For my own reference, it was UtherSRG, for example on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=1162326521. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kj cheetham,

The New Page Patrol 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 Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

• Deckiller
• Electionworld
• MBisanz
• Penwhale
• Raul654
• Roadrunner
• Viridae
• Yannismarou

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

• Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

• Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

• Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

Hello Kj cheetham, thank you for following-up on the recently published Cheryl McKissack Daniel article (my first AfC review). I noticed that you moved the {{WIR-00-2023}} wrapper template into the banner shell. Can you have a glance at my note in Talk explaining why I placed it where I did, and let me know if any objection to my moving out again? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cl3phact0, thanks for your message. I wanted to this say is on my radar and I'll try and reply tomorrow. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for letting me know. This is partly a question of usage of the c. 300 existing WIR wrapper templates, but the main issue surrounding this is really a proposal to merge all of these wrappers in to one. It's a bit over my head technically, however I've been drawn into the discussion (perhaps to my detriment), as I do see the merit in keeping the system largely as it is. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cl3phact0, firstly apologies I didn't see your comment at Talk:Cheryl_McKissack_Daniel#Post-publication before I did https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheryl_McKissack_Daniel&diff=prev&oldid=1163533323. That was done as part of my use of a semi-automated tool, namely WP:RATER.

I don't have an hour to read all the other threads, but looks like two main issues there - including about merging the various WIR together, and whether WIR templates should be inside the banner shell. The first seems to have stemmed from Template_talk:WikiProject_banner_shell#Detecting_duplicate_banners, but the latter is what I'm concerned with here.

From my point of view, there is a problem more widely with talk page clutter (e.g. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_34#Thinking_about_a_radical_reduction_of_talk_page_banners), but there being more use of banner shells seem to help combat that. They used to be for articles with at least 3 or 4 projects, but are now able to use even with no projects.

Even Vital tags are now inside the banner shell: Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_layout#Vital_tags_should_be_placed_with_WikiProjects and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vital_Articles/Archive_3#TfD_follow-up:_Fate_of_the_vital_article_talk_banner.

I'd asked about WIR in the banner shell in 2021 at Template_talk:WIR#Inside_or_outside_the_banner_shell?. The tool I use for rating automatically puts many of the WIR templates into the banner shell, which I fully support. I see absolutely no reason why the WIR project warrants the banners being outside the shell. So until there is consensus, ideally beyond the WIR project, I will contine to move those banners into the shell as the Rater tool already does. It would cause me (and other who do similar) more work if anything to stop doing that as well.

I hope this makes my point of view clearer? Of course I won't be resorting to edit warring though. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links to these resources. I'm not surprised that this has been the subject of previous discussion, and am glad to now have links to find these. WP:RATER looks intriguing as well – may well be adding this one to the toolbox, so thanks for that too!

I'll try to read as much of the above as I can so as to better understand your point of view. Point taken about the amount of sunk hours in this and wouldn't dream of asking anyone to read the whole of it. I tried to briefly summarise my thinking here (second paragraph – which seems like it may pull in the other direction). I'm an aesthete and think of the wrappers as a aide-memoire flourish of sorts, but there seem to be important technical/workflow issues at stake too. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more a scientist, so I look at things from a more technical point of view I suspect. I did wonder if a wrapper within a wrapper might be an option, but that would just hide the WIR templates further. I'm also trying to approach things from a Wikipedia-wide viewpoint, rather than just a single project (though I fully support WIR in principle). The shell banner itself is currently undergoing a lot of discussion at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell, but that's a whole other kettle of fish! -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists and artists are cut from the same cloth (in my view). Both make things of enduing beauty, the enlightened creative processes by which they arrive are not dissimilar, and the best science is aesthetically stunning ;-) Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kj cheetham, reaching out to you for discussing on the addition of Cleanup tag and Puffery tag by you. I appreciate recent re-organization of content but instead of deleting my contributions would like to understand what the problems with the information were that I added on the life of Lancelot Ribeiro. To the best of my knowledge, I am being objective in my approach on describing his life and career. Would like to discuss the ways forward to remove the above-mentioned tags and continue positive contribution to bettering the article as art lovers.

Regards, 

SDhivar SDhivar (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SDhivar, thanks for your message. I previously only removed a single word, "prodigious", which is a WP:PEACOCK term. The formatting has been improved overall since I placed the cleanup tag on 28 June, so I corrected some bold in the lede, reformatting the images, and removed that template just now. I've done a bit of minor editing of the text and removed the puffery tag too. I also removed the verification tag at the top and placed one on the specific section that is unreferrenced. I hope this helps. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Keep up the good work overall! -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply and actions. I appreciate the transparency in our discussion. I have gone through the puffery help section on Wikipedia. I am starting to get a hang of it. Still, thanks for the formatting. 

Regarding the verification of the statement by The Independent, I have added the citation/reference. For the quote by Lancelot Ribeiro in the Commonwealth Institute Lecture, I tried searching for the original source but so far have been able to find the same quote in several other London Art gallery websites like Ben Uri and also the official website of Lancelot Ribeiro. Let me know if you are able to find the source. Regarding the section name 'Career' after the 'Influence and Critical Reception' what should it be renamed as?

Thanks once again.

Regards, 

SDhivar SDhivar (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]