I do not review drafts or newly created pages for payment. I never have. I do not possess any special permissions - technical or procedural - that would allow me to guarantee the outcome of any article or draft.
Legitimate reviewers at
Articles for Creation and
New Page Patrol are volunteers and will never ask for payment to get a draft into the main site, improve a draft, restore a deleted article, or mark an article as indexable by search engines. If someone contacts you with such an offer, it is a scam. To report it, send a copy of the email, including headers, to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org.
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (
T313405)
Arbitration
An
arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for
The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve
vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the
May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the
Awards page and the
Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated
NPP Browser tool.
Hello Sirdog, thank you for you feedback on the article (
/info/en/?search=Draft:C-Net_12.0). My inspiration for creating this page was that there was next to nothing on the internet available about this software that I and many others remember so fondly. Therefore, I was not able to find many references that refer to this topic directly. I did however find a lot of sources that I thought would be sufficient.
As part of my creation process I looked at this page:
/info/en/?search=C-Net_DS2. DS2 is another C-Net version from the same era. However, that Wikipedia page no citations or sources (other than names of people) whatsoever. So looking at my page, where I found several and cited them properly (I thought), I expected to be in much better shape than the page on DS-2.
Do you have any advice for me? Should I remove the sources and only leave the official manual? Keep in mind that this was from 1987 so not a lot of out there in the public space. Which is why I wanted this page.
Thanks for your time and for any advice you could give me.
Jimmyzeet (
talk) 15:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. —
Sirdog(
talk) 20:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for reaching out,
Jimmyzeet. Wikipedia's expectations around content can be confusing. I will say that your draft is objectively in a better state than
C-Net DS2, if by no other reason than it cites sources. Because Wikipedia is mostly edited by volunteers, it is possible to find examples of pages that
are not at all in line with content norms but still don't have interested editors to improve them. A page citing no sources is unacceptable and could be
deleted on that basis unless some are found.
While I sympathize with the fact
C-Net 12.0 is quite old and thus sourcing may be hard to find, as I have a similar problem with writing about the production of the film
Lord of War, ultimately if adequate sourcing cannot be located than the topic is unsuitable for an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not desire to be a place for things to be remembered, for lack of a better term, that have been forgotten (again, lack of a better term). It aims to have encyclopedic articles about topics that have significant coverage by multiple independent and reliable sources, just like print encyclopedias would do.
My advice would be to try and find more sourcing, and it's worth noting that offline sourcing, such as books which may have referred to this software, are valid and may be worthwhile to look for given this topic's age. If you are ultimately unsuccessful, I'd advise choosing a different topic to write about, or perhaps
do other things for Wikipedia until you get a better grasp of possible article topics which are likely to survive scrutiny.
In relation to citing "properly", the page I linked to in my AFC comment along with the
Visual Editor should make that mostly a breeze. If you have any specific questions after reading
Help:Referencing for beginners, feel free to make use of the resources I alluded to in my AFC comment.
—
Sirdog(
talk) 03:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the welcoming comment
I appreciated it, but as I posted on the NPP discussion page just now, it was not deserved. I have very low technical skills, and stay away from the alphabet soup drama boards. I just write articles that interest me. I never even knew that I was supposed to put articles in a review queue; I just created them, and then was surprised when I got notices of reviews. Had no idea where that was coming from or why.
All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I don’t know a lot about Wiki-processes. I wanted to help, and thought NPP might be it, but that chart just turned me right off. Far too dense and bloated; just made me want to go back to my little corner and work on content.
i am concerned that “bloat” and increasing emphasis on tech tools (eg citation templates) is an entry block for Wikipedia. That chart just confirmed my concern.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, I appreciate you reaching out. I completely understand where you are coming from; everyone contributes to the encyclopedia differently. I suppose it was presumptuous of me to make the comment alluded to, as I take for granted my knowledge of things like deletion processes or how to report copyright, as most of what I see from experienced editors in the places I lurk know those things and I
did take a course that was dedicated to teaching me those things. I can't say that I agree with all of your feedback at the NPP page, but I can agree that the learning curve from "just started editing" to "experienced editor" is steep and is probably concerning in an age of decreasing attention spans. Happy editing! —
Sirdog(
talk) 03:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I didn’t want to just be a bomb-thrower, so thought it important to respond to hey-man-I’m-Josh’s question. Those were my top-of-my-head reactions.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 05:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since
December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing.
Election results: In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year
Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC).
Drive: 46 editors signed up for our
January Backlog Elimination Drive, 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are
here.
Blitz: 23 editors signed up for our
February Copy Editing Blitz. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are
here.
Drive: 53 editors signed up for our
March Backlog Elimination Drive, 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are
here.
Blitz: Sign up for our
April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded
here.
Progress report: As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki,
Miniapolis and
Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
Hi,
I am trying to create an article on Australian Broadcaster, Marius Webb, the first staff elected member of the ABC and founder of Triple J. I need to add quite a bit to the article but before I do I was hoping you can let me know if I am going in the right direction. Triple J will be celebrating 50 years on Air and Marius will be interviewed quite extensively at that time. I would like to have it up and with various citations in place. --
ChrissieEWebb (
talk) 05:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Welcome to Wikipedia,
ChrissieEWebb, and sorry for my tardy reply!
Help:Your first article is a good place to start in figuring out whether you are going in the right direction. The most important thing is going to be demonstrating that Marius Webb meets our
notability policy, which states they must have multiple
independent and
reliable sources which provide them
significant coverage. Editors tend to weigh interviews very low on meeting this bar, as depending on the quality of the interview it tends to simply be
the subject speaking about themselves which is not independent. I would be cautious if you are planning to rely on those interviews to help prove Marius deserves an article.
I'd also advise making use of the
Articles for Creation process when you ultimately think the article is ready for publishing. This ensures an experienced editors reviews it and eithers publishes it if it's ready or "declines" it (unless rejected you can re-submit as many times as you like if declined) and provides feedback on what went wrong.
The
Teahouse is also a good resource for asking questions, aside from myself.
Happy editing! —
Sirdog(
talk) 05:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi Sirdog,
Thanks so very much. A great help. Also I fully understand that Marius wont be interviewed because of the Wiki article, it’s more to see that the facts are in the right place when outside sources seek them. All the best
Hello. Do you have tips for finding references for articles? Also any sources for basic grammar and what not, i could just google but figured i would ask --
Steven Fernandez1 (
talk) 15:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Welcome to Wikipedia,
Steven Fernandez1! For basic grammar, the
Manual of Style by it's nature includes a lot of instruction on the topic to help editors copy-edit articles. It's a very large manual, encompassing norms that have developed for well over a decade. Most editors that aren't fixated on making articles the
highest quality possible tend to just follow the
simplified version and then refer to particular pages when they have a specific question. You can also visit the
Guild of Copy Editors, a large and active group of editors that dedicate themselves to copy-editing. They maintain other resources on the topic, and I'm sure you can always ask on
their talk page if you have a specific question you can't find an answer for.
In terms of finding sources, my go-to is to use Google News, which filters search results to news reporting sites. A good resource to read up on making good searches on search engines is
Wikipedia:Search engine test § Using search engines. Once you become an
extended-confirmed editor you'll automatically gain access to
The Wikipedia Library, which is an amalgamation of high-quality source aggregators that the
Wikimedia Foundation pays for and maintains for editors to use when doing article research.
I hope this helps! —
Sirdog(
talk) 21:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello,
Zu-brak. The page you have linked to is where editors request various types of permissions from administrators to help them edit in particular ways. Is there a specific permission you are interested in? —
Sirdog(
talk) 05:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have to request a handle, can you guide me how to do it?
Zu-brak (
talk) 05:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
And on which handle should I apply?
Zu-brak (
talk) 05:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not a username, but a badge.
Zu-brak (
talk) 05:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, the term "badge" is not adding much clarity as to what you are attempting to accomplish. If you refer to any of the bolded text at
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions § Handled here, you would click the button that says "view requests" to the right of the relevant badge/permission. Near the top of the next page will be a blurb describing the criteria you need to meet for an administrator to consider your account for the permission/"badge". —
Sirdog(
talk) 06:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Im an artist and singer, i want to add my bio to wikipedia how do i do this? --
5 Fires (
talk) 23:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Welcome to Wikipedia,
5 Fires. Understand that Wikipedia aims to be a high quality encyclopedia. To achieve this goal, articles on Wikipedia — which include
biographies about people who are alive — must meet our
notability standards. Put simply, we need multiple independent (meaning the
source is not endorsed or affiliated with you) and
reliable (meaning the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, such as
NPR) sources which provide you
significant coverage (meaning there is commentary about you specifically that exceeds a trivial mention) for you to be eligible for an article. Note that it is discouraged that you write about yourself, as that is a de facto
conflict of interest, which Wikipedia stands pretty firmly against due to our policy of
writing material from a neutral point of view. It's also worth noting that, due to our desire to write content from a neutral point of view, it isn't
necessarily a good thing for you to have an article about yourself.
Presuming you wish to pursue this endeavor, which I caution — with compassion — will be difficult and most likely frustrating, you can create a
draft biography and then submit it through
Articles for Creation. Said process is where experienced and neutral editors review your draft and determine if it's suitable for publishing. You can also submit a request for someone to create an article about you at
Wikipedia:Requested articles.
Feel free to stop by again if you have further questions.
—
Sirdog(
talk) 00:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I thought i have crafted a homepage, but on publishing everything seems to have disappeared without trace. I presume this is my fat fingers and it is not in some limbo somewhere waiting for authorisation.
You appear to have been blocked,
Tomartacus. I will be happy to assist you with any questions you should have if or when you are unblocked. —
Sirdog(
talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks.
T280531
The essay to which Future Perfect at Sunrise refers was created by Future Perfect at Sunrise himself. (
Personal attack removed). Previously de-sysopped, his admin tools were inexplicably restored and the parade of complaints against him at ANI and ArbCom resumed. In a gross violation of
WP:INVOLVED he protected
Islamic calendar indefinitely to thwart moves to provide an accurate caption to the picture there after a petition to correct it garnered 400,000 signatures. Scholars have confirmed that the picture, apparently of Ali preaching to the Ahl al-Bayt inside a mosque, has no relevance to the pilgrimage, which is an outdoor event. Here is a suggested correction:
There's been no response to the edit request. Can you make the requested edit?
92.27.128.96 (
talk) 14:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
References
^ Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, Arabe 1489 fol. 5v. (Bibliothèque Nationale on-line catalog). See also: Robert Hillenbrand, "Images of Muhammad in al-Bīrūnī's Chronology of Ancient Nations", in: R. Hillenbrand (ed.), Persian Painting from the Mongols to the Qajars: Studies in Honour of Basil W. Robinson (London/New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2000), pp. 129–46, which confirms that the prohibition of intercalation is an "unlikely" theme of the work.
Disambiguation link notification for May 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
Chhattisgarh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
Sirpur. Such links are
usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the
FAQ • Join us at the
DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
opt-out instructions. Thanks, --
DPL bot (
talk) 17:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Sirdog, I saw that you once answered a question on the
Iggy Azalea page and was wondering can you please change the genre from
pop-rap as it was referring to the genre itself and not her music and change it to
Hip hop[1][2][3][4] as those sources most definitely call her a hip hop artist? Many thanks and have a nice day.
Skalette (
talk) 04:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for reaching out to me,
Skalette, and for taking the time to request edits to improve the encyclopedia. You will probably have a better chance of having this actioned by making an
edit request (write "Iggy Azalea" in the box that appears when you click the link). This way editors which may be more in-tune with musical artists, and have more interest in their articles, will have the opportunity to see and evaluate your request.
—
Sirdog(
talk) 02:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A lot of the other users, are hell bent on restoring it to a false edit and seeing how you're a neutral third party I thought you'd be the better one to do it if at all possible Please? Many thanks.
Skalette (
talk) 16:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Skalette, if you believe this to be the case I'd advise looking into
dispute resolution methods to try and resolve the situation. I do not believe I am best suited to assist you as I am not that interested in Iggy Azalea or her music. My involvement on the page was only to close a lot of edit requests which were malformed. I wish you the best! —
Sirdog(
talk) 20:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
What typically happens is a person or organization will offer someone who is interested in having a Wikipedia article the service of "guaranteeing", in some fashion, that their page will go live and not get taken down. They may also "guarantee" certain outcomes, such as the article speaking favorably or not including details the victim would not want public. They will offer this service for a price. I'm not too familiar with what the "going rates" for articles are nowadays, as I've yet to run into a victim of this scam personally. Scammers will tend to go to exhaustive lengths to "prove" their legitimacy, or may even feign being good faith editors in an attempt to circumvent scrutiny and actually make good on their "guarantees" (to have a positive case study to further convince others of their scam). Scammers tend to know that these attempts will fail, even if it takes a bit of time to catch 'em, which makes them scam artists.
hi sirdog! I am having a lot of issues editing a page that currently has inaccuracies. All of the copy that I have submitted for edits has footnotes and is objective. Can you please assist? --
Fragrancelover (
talk) 20:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply