User talk:Tymon.r/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stub tags

Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag, as you did in this edit - it only wastes other editors' time. Thanks. PamD 12:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats on winning Google Code-in 2016! We hope to see you in 2017 as mentor.

Ignaciouy (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ignaciouy: Thanks! Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Testing something

Hey Tymon!

I am testing something :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hickland (talk • contribs) 23:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Tymon.r,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Tymon.r,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Tymon.r,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 803 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Tymon.r, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

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

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Tymon.r, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Tymon.r, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Tymon.r, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

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

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tymon.r. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Beata Szydło

She will leave office on 12 December, after the confidence vote. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Tymon.r, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Tymon.r, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Tymon.r, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

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

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

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

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Tymon.r, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

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

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Tymon.r, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

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

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Tymon.r, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Tymon.r, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

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

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Tymon.r, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Tymon.r, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

AIV report / 3RR note

3RR doesn't apply when you are reverting vandalism, FYI. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ferret: thanks for letting me know. I have been aware of it, but as the vandalism occurrence was possibly disputable, I didn't want to get myself engaged in an argument about it. 37.248.253.139 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC) forgot to log-in - but it was me Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 16:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Tymon.r,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

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

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

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Tymon.r. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Tymon.r,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You found a Huggle bug :)

Hi, you may like to see phab:T207701#4979419 for details. Feel free to subscribe for updates on the topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @ToBeFree: thanks for letting me know about this conflict of edits and fixing it already up. Sorry for this happening. Am I understanding it well – it's due to not up-to-date Huggle version of mine? Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tymon.r, don't worry, it's not your fault. While users normally are responsible for tool usage, a clear tool bug is not the user's fault. About the Huggle version, I don't know: The issue is still open, so theoretically the issue could still be present. On the other hand, it has happened to me using Huggle 3.4.4, and it has happened to you using Huggle 3.4.4 too. It has never happened to me again ever since, so it may already have been fixed in 3.4.5 or 3.4.6. If it happens again with a different version, please add a comment about it to the bug report. Have fun and good luck! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

PC Week

Hello Tymon. Thank you for all you do on Wikipedia. The PC Week page was originally intended to be a redirect. Someone deleted the redirect. If you review the history of eWeek you will see that it was formerly called PC Week.BuffaloBob (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@BuffaloBob: Hey, thank you very much for sharing your input. The page in its shape, which I could see at the moment I was reviewing it, was unacceptable, therefore I marked for speedy deletion. I am grateful you brought the page back to an acceptable form (redirect). Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 18:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Jace Alexander

I feel like my edit to Jace Alexander is constructive. His wife has a one-woman show discussing her experience which was written up in the NYT. Please revert your reversion of my edit. Thanks! 98.14.96.85 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@98.14.96.85: Thank you for messaging me. Sharing potentially libelous content on Wikipedia without providing resources to support is against our policies. If you do provide trustworthy resources, then your change might be restored without a risk of further reversions or restrictions to an access to editing tools of yours. Therefore, for now, I decline to revert my reversion. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The article itself supports it in the "child pornography section", Tymon. Plenty of trustworthy resources. Please take a closer look. This article in the NYT brought me to the article [1]. If Alexander is chiefly notable now for being a distributor of child pornography, our article should mention it in the intro. Look at Paul Manafort as a example. Thanks. 98.14.96.85 (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at this: Wikipedia:ROLLBACKUSE. I do not think that you should have reverted my good-faith edits with automatic rollback tool. Also, I've started a discussion in the article talk page. 98.14.96.85 (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@98.14.96.85: Thank you for linking the Wikipedia page above, I am familiar with rules of using the rollback tool, though. Adding potentially defamatory content must be handled with great caution – in my opinion protecting article subject's integrity and reputation is far more important than hurting feelings of an editor, whose changes are getting reverted, and getting him engaged in clarifying his purpose. So was it in this case. You are correct – information about child pornography abuse was well-resourced later on in the article. I apologize for an inconvenience my revert caused you. But, at the moment of reviewing your changes, there was no sign which could let a reviewer consider your contribution as a good-faith edit (maybe more descriptive edit summary would do the work?), so, per what I have written above, I have rollbacked it. However, I am still not convinced whether we should put information about the conviction in the article's lead. As you have started discussion in the article talk page, let's wait for other contributors to share their view on your proposal. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism problem for KKBN

Hello Tymon, thanks for all you do. Novice editor with a problem with (likely) one or two disgruntled ex employees of Clarke Broadcasting. Also means there were problems with KZSQ, KVML and myMotherlode.com wiki pages. [[2]] can you set up pending changes protection for a bit? These were not logged changes, but I have no experience with this. I will check back before I got home at 5pm and tomorrow morning. Hope you can help us out. SabralaSabrala (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sabrala: Hey, thanks for reaching out to me. As I am not an administrator, I'm not competent to handle your request. I forwarded it to WP:RPP though. Unfortunately, it has been rejected. You can read the administrator's justification of this decision in the link I shared with you above. Usually when some disruptive editing happens, first we try to warn and then block or range-block involved users. If applying blocks is hard, e.g. vandals use different IPs from different ranges, for an extended period of time, then the protection is likely to be applied. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 11:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the update @Tymon.r, I really didn't understand how to see what happened. I thought about asking again because there was another 3,000+ byte update from an IP but a bot reverted it immediately. Later a logged in person added a paragraph and then one more. I removed those but my main concern is how can I monitor it? I am hoping the ways wiki usually deals with this stuff are working. I checked the box to get updates but I never got an email (I checked my junk mail folder too and approved wikipedia as a safe sender) I did get an email when you mentioned my name directly. I reviewed the wikietiquette and I see how you end your comment but I don't know how to use that question feature? SabralaSabrala (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism warning for IcsSer

Hi Tymon, I noticed the user IcsSer has received two vandalism warning templates on their talk page one of which was from you. Looking at the edits I believe they were correct typo fixes 1 2 and the warnings unwarranted. As an inexperienced user myself I was unsure whether it would be appropriate for me to remove the templates from their talk page so I thought it would be best to contact one of the editors involved. Thanks, The Skeptical Ham (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@The Skeptical Ham: Hey! Thank you for messaging me and pointing it out. As, I agree, these changes should not be considered vandalism, they have been incorrect, though, in accordance with MOS:ABBR. I will on my own and explain the situation to an editor whose changes have been reverted. You are right – usually we do not remove messages posted on someone's talk page by other Wikipedians. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 11:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Triple relist

Just a heads up about your relist of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Awards for Young Talent. The usual procedure is to only do two relists. It's generally not useful to relist it a third time. Not a big deal, just for future reference. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD relisting

Hi Tymon! Thanks for your work at AfD. However, per WP:RELIST, please refrain from relisting AfD discussions that have already been relisted twice and haven't seen any significant contributions (for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ansar Channel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Awards for Young Talent, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighter AI, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Be). Instead, consider leaving those discussions for admins to close; or, if appropriate, you could close them yourself. For more information, please see WP:NOQUORUM and WP:Relist bias. Thanks! ansh666 08:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

(sorry for the repeat message, I didn't see Roy's comment above. ansh666 08:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC))

@Ansh666: @RoySmith: Hey! Thank you for messaging me and pointing it out. As I have been already aware of this rule, not to relist something for 3rd time, I still believed more in giving an additional chance for reaching a consensus on a subject than closing a discussion without a clear result. My mistake, I should not have put my personal opinion over our well-established policies. Please accept my apologize. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting Habiba Djilani article for deletion

Hi Tymon.r , I just noticed you suggested the Habiba Djilani article for deletion. I would love to know what is wrong with the article, apart the fact that it contained a photo that didn't respect commons policy and that was deleted already? Habiba Djilani is an important woman in the history of medicine not only in Tunisia but also in Africa and the arab world. The article was written by a participant during a WikiGap workshop yesterday. Looking forward to hearing from you. Houssem Abida (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Houssem Abida: At first, I believed the subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. The discussion convinced me I was wrong. I have just withdrawn the deletion nomination. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 14:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, Thanks for the help Tympn.r.Houssem Abida (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recurring Monty Python's Flying Circus characters

Please revert your inappropriate closure of that AFD here. The nominator (one delete !vote) retracting their own !vote after others have already supported deletion is not a valid speedy keep rationale. I'd revert you myself, but I am not sure if I'd need to do anything other than simply reverting your edit to the AFD so as not to have to "renominate" the page. Note that I am aware that you appear to have closed the AFD without giving it any more than a quick glance, since you relisted a different AFD only two minutes earlier, relisted another immediately after, and two minutes later closed another as keep.[3] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:. Hello. Thanks for messaging me. I can't agree with you (in full). Actually, as long "speedy keep" was not justified in this case, there was a consensus to keep the article, so I should've closed the discussion with this outcome. You were the only one arguing for its deletion after nominator had withdrawn the nomination, others have proven the subject meets WP:GNG. So I am changing the outcome without reopening discussion and performing any further actions.

Just to let you know – you should not edit the discussion page anymore, nor revert my changes. You are not an uninvolved party and you are not in position to make decisions on this case. Additionally, I think I don't have to mention it'd be against our deletion policy. If you want to appeal, you can do this here.

BTW I don't like your insinuations – I always go through the discussion carefully before making my mind whether there are rationales to close it or the consensus is established. Tools like WP:XFDC make things easier and quicker now. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 14:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Even though I was primarily responsible for having this article kept, I really have to agree that speedy close was inappropriate, especially as a NAC. Nobody called for speedy close in the discussion, no rationale for speedy close was given in the decision, none of the usual reasons for speedy close such as bad faith nomination applied, and "keep" was still being actively opposed, so a snow close did not apply either. A speedy close can mean that the their was an invalid nomination, and can be swiftly followed by a speedy renomination with a better rationale. To me, a regular "keep" close is much preferable as that shows indisputably the consensus was for notability and against WP:NOT. It was not even necessary to do a speedy; the discussion had been open for over seven days at the time of the close, so this was not an early close, which is when speedy is normally used. SpinningSpark 15:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I do absolutely agree. That's why I've changed the initial result I chose. Although, it doesn't change my support for what I have written above in reply to Hijiri 88 message and his suggestions my closure should have been reverted (even by him on his own). Thank you for your input! Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the reason I didn't revert you myself was exactly the kind of wikilawyering you have just repeatedly subjected me to anyway. A certain strict legalistic interpretation of the policy might say that "involved" editors like SpinningSpark and myself are not allowed revert a close, but that assumes the close wasn't itself a clumsy, counterpolicy close. Your revised "keep" close is fine, although it does nothing to allay my concerns that all you normally do when closing AFDs is count !votes except that in this case you saw that one of the speedy keep criteria kinda almost applies if you squint hard enough. Please be more careful in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, a reminder that non-admin closures at AfD should be limited to uncontroversial decisions (WP:NOTBADNAC: clear keep, clear lack of participation, etc.) Please leave other discussions, such as the one above, for admins to close. (not watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 03:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

FTR, I don't consider this particular AFD to be controversial. I was in the clear minority. The problem was that either (a) the closer didn't understand that the speedy deletion criterion they invoked does not apply when at least one editor is still opposed to a keep result or (b) the closer didn't read the discussion closely enough to know that that criterion did not apply. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop

Refrain from further closures in AfDs; unless you are sufficiently experienced and aware of our policies. There have been lots of complaints in the above sections.

This in part. was a horrible closure. I have no clue about why TheSandDoctor relisted it for the 3rd time despite the single !vote in my support but at any case, it was at the last day of the 3rd relist span, when Rebecca chimed in with sources. A sock !voted in agreement and another followed. FWIW; socks are always discounted and given that I had no opportunity to rebut the sources; I am amazed at your keep closure. I have thus reverted you under the purview of IAR but feel free to reinstate the closure shall you wish so, pending which I will seek a DRV. ∯WBG^converse 05:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: You're totally right. In hindsight, I should have closed and treated the AfD like an expired PROD instead of relisting to garner more consensus. Thanks and I apologize for any frustration. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No qualms and nothing to apologize for:-) ∯WBG^converse 05:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Tymon: I agree that that was an inappropriate closure, and that you should be much more careful with non-admin closures at AfD.

  However, WBG: that was an exceedingly inappropriate use of IAR. When sources are added to a discussion does not matter in regards to closing, and it's not obligatory to allow the other side to respond. The appropriate course of action for you would have been to come here and discuss with Tymon first, as was done in the section immediately above, and if they did not give a satisfactory response or refused to revert, then take it to an uninvolved administrator or DRV. Please do not revert a good-faith closure of any deletion discussion that you have participated in, let alone nominated. Thanks, ansh666 06:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I am concerned about how often WP:IAR is called by @Winged Blades of Godric to justify his questionable actions. Wikipedia is not an anarchy and, while we are here primarily to create a free encyclopedia, some rules are still enforced. Practically, WBG has just severely abused the deletion policy. I don't know what is a judgement of administrators on the situation and whether in their mind WBG should be warned (@Ansh666?), but it's a job of the deletion revision or some uninvolved administrators to overrule controversial closure decisions, even if they are done by non-admins. Alternatively, possibly the best solution is to start a discussion with a person who performed a disputable closure. When it's done by someone who is a nominator, on his own... this practically looks like he puts himself above others and considers his opinion more important. No, it's not more important. If it were, why to start a discussion at all? Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 17:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  How often? Diffs please. Get off with this wiki-lawyering before you get T-Banned. ∯WBG^converse 17:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• This discussion is over for me, at least for now. I do not converse with people who threaten me or behave in an impolite, uncivil way. You want me to get banned - go ahead. Start a procedure and I will make my points when it's necessary. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 19:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Given the abuse Tymon subjected me to one section up, and the fact that clearly was not an isolated incident, I'd support a formal topic ban unless he promptly agrees not to make any more AFD closures until he has gained a better understanding of our deletion policy and promises to read every discussion carefully before closing: two closes and two relists in four minutes is simply unacceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I am getting tired of your insinuations @Hijiri88. Firstly, about yet undefined abuse, secondly, about judging discussions too quickly (?), thirdly, about not understanding policies. You've never seen me closing an AfD discussion and you're not in a position to judge how I do it. The only thing which could a subject of other's review in accordance with our policies is a discussion outcome choice and its applicability. And even there you are excluded from decision-making as you're not uninvolved (and no one should be a judge in his own case, also per our policies). Please stop accusing me of something I didn't do. I am aware I am not omnipotent and I can make mistakes, I have admitted making some, even in statements above. I apologize for all of them. However, what you're implying is just rude. I will keep working on closing AfD discussions with great, appropriate care. I hope you are aware to apply a "formal topic ban" on me you would need to start a community discussion or make an applicable request to ArbCom. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 16:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@RebeccaGreen, @Nosebagbear: Hello. I am pinging you as you might be possibly interested in a discussion which is taking place above. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 19:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• So my comments are regard's Tymon' recent relists and closes are somewhat mixed. Relists can be done quite quickly - if they're AfDs with no !votes, then it doesn't take much time. You also don't know how long was spent reading the first - so the timing concerns need a larger sample size to make any judgement based off that.

Tymon conceded that he shouldn't have done that Speedy Keep (though an interesting case could be made that doing a "per nom" argument means you've conceded independent decision making, so any change by them is a change by the second editor).

It's a fairly agreed set-up that Non-Admins shouldn't do a non-consensus close, as was done here. We're barred from controversial closes, and a NC must be, by definition, controversial.

However, the Bondita Acharya was a perfectly legitimate close, and as I and RebeccaGreen noted, was a terrible use of IAR.

@Hijiri88: - could you point out what particular content by Tymon formed abuse - I didn't spot anything in my read through, but don't want to give a firm thought on that until clarified.

Tymon has made relatively few closes (as opposed to relists). I don't think his fundamental AfD decision-making is the problem, but staying on the traditional NAC remit is important. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"I don't like your insinuations" (repeated immediately above here), "You're involved -- don't revert my close" (I never implied I intended to, and yet he also repeated that twice). Also, could you please comment on the "one close per minute" phenomenon I pointed out above -- you agree that non-admins should not do counter-consensus closes, but how do you think Tymon went about assessing that consensus in the few seconds he spent skimming the discussion? He clearly didn't even notice that there were three "delete" !votes, since he closed as "speedy keep - withdrawn". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

While some of that is not great, it definitely is not abuse. And bluntly, if you do think it is abuse (and Tymon disagrees), this has ceased to be the right forum. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I was pinged to comment on this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bondita Acharya, in which I participated. Discussion seems to have ranged into other AfDs, about which I have no knowledge. In this AfD, before the sock vote was struck, I do not think that the closure was controversial. As I said in the AfD, if the nominator had a problem with the closure, there are processes which can address that. WP:IAR is not necessary when a review can be requested (giving other editors an opportunity to give their opinions on the closure decision and/or the reasonableness of re-opening the AfD), and when the article could be nominated for deletion again. I do not understand why we are discussing Tymon's closure practices when it seemed to me that the nominator's reversion of the closure was an abuse of the process, exacerbated by being accompanied by abusive language and unwarranted insinuations. (For the record, I was not trying to "game the system" - I was away on a work trip for two weeks, and was trying to catch up on AfDs by going through those about to end.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harald Tveit Alvestrand

Hi Tymon.r, I noticed that you recently made a non-admin closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harald Tveit Alvestrand. While I do not disagree with the decision/result, I just wanted to let you know that this was a potentially controversial AfD since the subject of the article commented on the Afd immediately followed by four users who are new / inactive, giving rise to potential COI and canvassing considerations. I am not accusing you or anyone else of wrongdoing but just letting you know to be aware. Thanks! — MarkH21 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Hey! Thanks for messaging me in regard to this closure. I understand your possible doubts, but I'd like to ensure you that I took in consideration that some of participants could have COI and some had it explicitly (Please do not delete Harald. He taught us stuff.). However, objectively strong rationales for keeping the nominated article were presented in a due process, including also by some long-serving, experienced Wikipedia editors. On the other side – there was practically no advocacy for deletion, nor any arguments, following yours, were presented. That's why, to my mind this AfD discussion not controversial, thus NAC was applicable. Again, thanks for getting in touch! Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Haha no worries, that is quite valid reasoning. Thanks for your work! — MarkH21 (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JATMBot

Is User:JATMBot yours? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak, it is. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Please consider posting at its userpage or usertalk with your sig. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, Tymon.r, contains the suffix "-bot", which is generally reserved for authorized bot accounts.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 15:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Tymon.r (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am more than surprised with the block of my legitimate alternative account, JATMBot, in contrary to what's stated in the block notice (I'm not blocked). Although, it's username in truth contain the "-bot" suffix, it was not and is not used for any edits except to account's own user-page and so it doesn't violate username policy. Account had to be created to reserve a username and start the proceedings for bot's approval. It's a standard procedure. Therefore I expect the block to be lifted. Thanks. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 16:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

This looks like an honest mistake, and I'll go ahead and revert the block on the account. I did read the discussion on the proceedings for your bot's approval, so this would be a legit account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute

Sorry, I'm a technological dunce and have no idea how to solve this. The other user is insisting on something that I feel is incorrect. I feel that I have provided evidence from Wikipedia's own pages to back up my point and he/she has disregarded it, choosing to revert my edit. How do I fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:83:8000:7100:5456:7268:4956:9C3E (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisting and NOQUORUM

I've noticed you relisting many AfD discussions lately. Today I specifically noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Sharman, which is a 2nd relist of a low participation AfD. Since another non-admin editor was recently topic banned at ANI for similar activity, I thought I'd drop a friendly heads-up that those sorts of AfDs (and in fact most AfDs) should not be relisted by non-admins. Admins have the full range of options in WP:NOQUORUM available to them, including deletion. You do not have the full range of options available to you, so relisting those leads to WP:RELISTBIAS, which unnecessarily consumes time and attention of AfD participants. Particularly given the recent discussion at ANI, I encourage you to participate in AfD discussions rather than relisting them. Bakazaka (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request JATMBot

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JATMBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 15:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

vandal

you scared me there big time, LOL. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

pgs page edits!!!!

keeps changing back my edits to the paisley grammar page when i am actually a pupil there and have the correct information, for example the head teacher is Janice Leavens not Zoe Madden who is on fact a pupil in my class who was having a joke. literally just google it and find something better to do AnDvjakNabsja (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@AnDvjakNabsja: A part of the information you were trying to add violates our WP:NPOV policy. You should not express your own opinion about a topic of the article (the school). However, I have checked who is the headmaster of that school and re-introduced your change in that scope – it's constructive and welcome! Thanks for it. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@AnDvjakNabsja: We appreciate your efforts to share information about your school. However, please take some time to get to know the Wikipedia's "no original research". Any facts which can't be referenced cannot be published on Wikipedia. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC) CC: @TheAwesomeHwyh:.

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your hard work on Huggle today :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thanks a lot for your appreciation and thanks for being vigilant today too ;) Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

i am NOT VANDALISING the Chinatown page

Can you stop reverting my constructive edit and read my edit summary where I explain my rationale? Thanks. - 14.203.38.101 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sure. I have read it and apologized to you on your talk page. Again, pardon me please for the problem. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia article about me

The article page about me on Wikipedia is not showing on Google or any search engine, why? I'm little bit confuse, please help me I am new here. Sturdyankit (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sturdyankit: Hey! Thanks for messaging me. By "article page about you" you probably mean your user page - User:Sturdyankit, right? Technically, it is not a main space article. Per our policy, user pages are implicitly not indexed by search engines to i.a. avoid users' self-promotion. I am sorry to say that, but probably, as for now, you are not notable enough to have an article about you published on Wikipedia. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 09:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Tymon.r|<font color="darkorange">Tymon.</font><font color="red">r</font>]] [[User talk:Tymon.r|<small><font color="navy">Do you have any questions?</font></small>]] : Tymon.r Do you have any questions?

to

[[User:Tymon.r|<span style="color:darkorange">Tymon.</span><span style="color:red">r</span>]] [[User talk:Tymon.r|<small style="color:navy">Do you have any questions?</small>]] : Tymon.r Do you have any questions?

—Anomalocaris (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: thanks for your message and pointing this out! I'll get my signature's HTML code updated ASAP. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 09:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Help

Sir, I just add some citations and references on my first article inspite of that there's showing "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" on top of the article. Help me sir, I don't want to be deleted. Sturdyankit (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sturdyankit: Hey, again thanks for messaging me. I have no power to decide whether an article is kept or deleted. On Wikipedia such decisions are usually made in the course of discussion. Please take a part in a discussion regarding a proposed deletion of your article - it is right there. Explain in your own words why you believe it should not be deleted. And don't give up – many of Wikipedians know the beginnings can be difficult. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 10:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your help reverting that vandal on my talk page, sorry I wasn't on to help you out though. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 10:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@NonsensicalSystem: You're always welcome ;-) Please consider asking an admin for REVDEL of that harassment on your talk page. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 11:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)