User talk:Nford24
| This is Nford24's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | Welcome to Nford24's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply. I will try to WP:PING you as well. Conversely if you are replying to something I've said on another talk page, reply there and include {{ping|Nford24}} to alert me. |
 | Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words. |
- Archives
New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023[edit]
Hello Nford24,
Backlog
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp connect on IRC.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Orphaned non-free image File:2002 RAN badge.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:2002 RAN badge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive[edit]
| New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
June 2024[edit]
Your recent editing history at Alan Bates shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in being blocked from editing—especially as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Maybe there could be a compromise for people. Instead of in the typical prefix slot, put it in front of the name, so that it's the same font size/bold, but then <line break> it, so it still sits atop the name. Perhaps that'll aid the visceral transition? Just a spontaneous thought, ha. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 08:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, reverting you once and you reverting twice doesn’t make me the person guilty of edit warring, but hey, you’re telling the story. You may need to read up on WP:BRD before continuing to edit Willy-nilly. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 10:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- You reverted prior to me, <--as seen there, to an IP user—who themself had reverted Atchom, who themself had amended the prefix without consensus discussion about this issue unbeknownst to many. Thus, you had reverted twice before I did. I believe it's applicable to the # of reverts of the same edit, regardless of the user.
- And from a previous issue I had, in which it had gotten......Just insane, including stalking to every single article I had edited on within the past couple of days....I had reported for the first time ever for both 3RR and harassment. And w/ 3RR and showing the diffs, I believe part of the instructions were to ensure I had opened up the lines of communications on both the user talk page between the person with whom I engaged in an edit war before it escalated further, to see if I can prevent having to summon a conflict resolution moderator; and the article talk page, to open the forum for others to weigh in on the topic at hand.
- Without canvassing of course, unless (apparently in a previous instance) summoning previously involved people in the same dispute? Perhaps that instance was desperation for the deadlocked. I dunno. But that's to answer your talk page question. Just following the protocol, and making an effort. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 00:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Atchom is acting with plenty of consensus from experienced editors, though most disagree (and I acknowledge that is an oxymoron). The most recent discussion can be found here Template talk:Infobox person. Most of the editors simply don't understand the complexities around titles in general, and the rest are against having 'Sir' on the name line, generally fail (or in some cases specially refuse) to take into account documented references calling knighthoods "name-changing titles", which only occurs in commonwealth countries (UK, AUS, NZ, etc). [1] The ain issue can be shown here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2008 archive: Honorific prefixes, where the quiet statement was actually mentioned "The U.S. doesn't recognize titles of nobility, so there is no such thing as a Sir Charles Darwin here." by User Ripe, which demonstrates clear US thought bias on WP.
- Take the whole thing as you see fit, but the existing wording largely stems from a 'consensus' that no one can find in any records publicly available on WP and editors don't want to change because its WP:FAITACCOMPLI.
- On a side note, I suggest you read WP:DTTR and WP:DTA, both will likely help you deal with some editors in future, templates are not a civil form of conversing. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- ^ "5 CONCLUSIONS". Parliament.UK. Select Committee on Public Administration.