User talk:Garchy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Garchy,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 814 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) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Avery Bradley

Hi you left a message on my talk page to stop the editing of Avery Bradley. The trade was made official by ESPN then I edited the page. Just because you don't about the trade doesn't everyone doesn't know about it yet. Here I am changing the pages to up to date information and I get messages from you saying that it is incorrect. Maybe before telling me I am wrong visit ESPN.com so you can see for yourself ok? G37 Gio (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@G37 Gio: We generally don't consider news reports on ESPN as verification of a trade - but you can use the official "NBA Transactions" section (where that trade wasn't listed yet). Please remember: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We do not break news, we verify encyclopedic information - we only post information once a trade is verified by the team (generally after a doctor has performed a physical). Twitter and other social networks are great for finding or posting about those early reports, but please don't be offended if you're reverted here on Wikipedia - just understand why. Garchy (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Garchy, 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:

General project update:

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

EuroTrip

My concern was that it was WP:OR without a source. I couldn't tell what was going on. But everyone knows it is the white smoke that announces a new pope. And the statement was made that the bell was for major announcements.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Ah, I just figured you were taking an editorial approach, sorry! :) In that case, I'll self-revert. Cheers, Garchy (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the white smoke was mentioned too. I shouldn't assume everyone knows but it was mentioned, so I don't know where anyone got the idea Scotty was the new pope.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not you, the other guy

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Garchy, 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)

See also

I can understand having reservations about the length of an entry in See Also, but as for OR ... see this discussion, where the consensus was that that's the one section where that policy should not be so rigorously applied, if, indeed, at all, since among other things the title of the section clearly indicates that this is something the editors are suggesting a reader might want to read about if they found this article interesting, i.e., this is not being stated as an impartial, verifiable fact in Wikipedia's voice. The "editorial judgement and common sense" recommended as a principle for inclusion at WP:SEEALSO seems to have worked quite well for all this time. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk · contribs): Thank you for linking to that discussion for me to take a look at. It appears that a consensus was made to not enact a guideline restricting OR in the See Also section - not to specifically allow OR in the see also section, but rather not specifically disallow it, to avoid collateral damage with a restrictive guideline. I don't have an issue with what has been decided in that discussion, that correlations between two articles can be made without violating OR guidelines. My issues with the wording were the matter of length and amount of correlations being made - a simple correlation of both being the largest art thefts in their respective countries seems a fine link to make between the two, but the extra nuances seemed unneeded, as a person using the see also to read that new page would clearly be able to make those correlations themselves, if they so chose. However, I'm happy to hear other comments on the matter if you'd like other opinions! Thanks, Garchy (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, since that edit I've looked at the Gardner theft article again and realized that, although it is a GA, it does not have all the facts that would fully support it (I just noticed, when I was working on the Montreal article, how many similarities there are between the two thefts). The editor who got it to GA relied mostly, I think, on news stories, but Stephen Kurkjian, one of the reporters who's covered it extensively, has written a good book about it which goes beyond his articles (I relied on it a lot for Robert Donati). Likewise there's another book about the Gardner theft by Ulrich Boser that I also found some info from.

For example, the Gardner theft article doesn't have a background section, discussing what is in the record about the constraints on the museum, both in the form of its tightening finances as the trust Ms. Gardner had left to support the museum began to dwindle in the 1980s and the terms of her will, which required that the museum be kept physically as she had left it. Both of those were huge obstacles to putting in the sort of security that might have been able to prevent the theft, weak security that had been well-known to Boston's criminal community for years.

Whereas in the MMFA robbery article I did write a section explaining how the exodus of the English elite from Montreal in the face of growing support for separatism, the English elite whose collections and cash had been used to literally build the museum in the first place, put similar constraints on the museum and its security. So a reader wouldn't even see that ... I guess I shall have to write that section for the Gardner theft article at some point.

I suppose the best thing would be someone writing an article in a reliable source pointing out those similarities. It's just unusual in art theft, because those stories are all so generally unalike except in broad outline. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

You bring up great points, and something that has frustrated me on Wiki before - the whole "needing to find RS for things that seem apparent" can be a huge obstacle. I actually think having these correlations (with RS) in the body of the Gardner theft article would be great, and also avoids the length issue in the see also I had brought up. I've been pretty busy IRL lately, but I'm happy to help if you want to start a discussion on either article talk page. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Misleading" username

I have requested a new username. Thank you.

MarkGiordano5 (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)MarkGiordano5 MarkGiordano5 (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for taking the time to create (and change/update) your account! Happy editing! Garchy (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your message

I am indeed the subject of the Wikipedia article you refer to. I am new to this, but wanted to update details of my en

try (quite out of date) so that Wikipedia's information is current.

I can easily ask somebody else to update on my behalf - is this the best way to proceed?

2A00:23C4:1FED:1A00:3814:9561:638:61D7 (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm assuming you're referring to the Peter Stark article. You are indeed welcome to edit the article yourself, you just have to be careful to avoid any conflict of interest that may arise. The biggest issue you may have is that for biographical articles Wikipedia has stringent requirements for inclusion - everything must be verified by references, so for example, while you may know your own birthday you would not be able to add that to the article without a citation (from an interview, perhaps). Or if you have your own website you can link to that. Also, check out this page because you can use the supplied email to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly with any inaccuracies. Happy editing, and we hope you enjoy your time here! It can be very confusing at first, but there are always other editors there willing to help. Cheers, Garchy (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

13:56:04, 5 September 2017 review of submission by BrentMBeshara


- Hello there Garchy. Thanks for taking the time to review our submission. - All of the submitted copy and content to the Besh Wedge wiki page is from published editorial articles from many sources over several years. - They are not our words and they're from published magazines with editors and authors. - So we're a little confused and don't know how to proceed further. Can you please advise us here? - Thanks for your time here, cheers.

Hi @BrentMBeshara: Apologies for the belated message back. I haven't had a chance to dive into the draft to help with some of the issues, but some of the main issues I saw are:
  • The article length - The article appears to be too lengthy for the subject matter, and therefore it is hard for you to find reliable sources to back up all the information. While the background information on the company is informative, keep in mind Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catalog or directory. I would keep the information concise, and to the facts. Take a look at Table Talk Pies, a page I created. It is a very notable company in my state with 60 years of history. Yet the page is concise and sticks to the bare facts.
  • Many of your links and references appear to be affiliate links. Reviews or product announcements that appear in press releases tend to violate many Wikipedia standards.

I would highly recommend starting over, as everything you delete will still be available in the "history" section of the draft. I think you'll find better success if you model your article similarly to the Table Talk Pies article. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

UAA report

Thanks for your report of 'GFields (WMF)'. I didn't know this either, but for future reference, if you look at this log, you can see that the account was created by another WMF staff account and it isn't possible to create accounts with the string '(WMF)' in the normal course of things. GoldenRing (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that either :) Garchy (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Garchy, 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 Garchy, 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:

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

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 06:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a look. Garchy (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Nboro first burial.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nboro first burial.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Seaport District

I have spun out a new article for the Seaport District. Since you suggested it on the South Boston talk page, I thought you may be interested in contributing. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ilvermorny Crest.png

Thank you for uploading File:Ilvermorny Crest.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Information icon Hello, I'm Tkbrett. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tomorrow Never Knows, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tkbrett (✉) 16:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tkbrett: This information is easily verifiable if you click the hyperlinked text to the Phil Collins album. Remember, our goal is to make Wikipedia a better place, so removing information (instead of marking it as “needs citation” or spending 30 seconds verifying yourself that it is in fact real) is preferred over removal. Garchy (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
You cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source (WP:RSPWP). If you want to include a cover, it needs to meet the standard of WP:COVERSONG. Tkbrett (✉) 15:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
@Tkbrett: - Just added in the Ultimate Classic Rock citation, the same publication used for a citation for another cover on the same page. A big pet peeve of mine on Wikipedia is those who spend more energy removing things than contributing to the project. You could just have easily used your critical thinking skills to find a citation (instead of removing the information TWICE). It would not have taken any more time for you to find a reputable citation for Phil Collins than it did to hawk your reasoning. Garchy (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garchy/Archive_3&oldid=1149260013"