Misplaced Pages

User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:09, 20 December 2014 edit107.77.90.25 (talk) →Gamergate, why?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:24, 18 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,971 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2024/November) (bot 
(999 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo=old(90d) |algo=old(15d)
|archive=User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s |archive=User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
|minthreadsleft=4 |minthreadsleft=4
Line 6: Line 6:
}} }}


== New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022 ==
== Gamergate/Sommers edits ==


Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},
Please see the talk page for why I removed the response articles. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. ] (]) 22:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
]
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The ] finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the ]. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.


'''Awards''': Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to {{Noping|MPGuy2824}}), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to {{no ping|John B123}} for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the ]. Check out the new ] also.
==Disambiguation link notification for September 30==
'''Software news''': {{Noping|Novem Linguae}} and {{Noping|MPGuy2824}} have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently ]. The ] has also been improved.
]
'''Suggestions''':
*There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
*Reminder: ''an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more.'' (from the ])
*Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
*This ] puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.


'''Backlog''':] Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the ] to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
{{-}}
{{refbegin}}
;Reminders
*Newsletter feedback - please take this ] about the newsletter.
*If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the , where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
*Please add ] to your watchlist.
*If you are no longer very active on Misplaced Pages or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at ].
*To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself ].
{{refend}}
<!-- Drafted by User:MB -->
<!-- Message sent by User:MB@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1114894896 -->


== New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023 ==
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">
== Arbcom clarification request:Sexology ==
{| style="float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF;
|}
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},
{| style="float: right;
|- style="font-size: 86%;"
|}
]
;Backlog
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to {{noping|WaddlesJP13}} who led with 2084 points. See ] for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.
;2022 Awards
]
{{no ping|Onel5969}} won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. {{no ping|Rosguill}} led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the ] and the ]. Congratulations everyone!


'''Minimum deletion time''': The previous ] guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and ]). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the ] are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)
The request for clarification you initiated or were involved with has been closed and archived without action for the arbitration committee --]] 15:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


'''New draftify script''': In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly ]. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your ] or vector.js file from <code>User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js</code> to <code>User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js</code>'''
==Jules Bianchi==
I've been on Misplaced Pages a long time, and I've never seen such lunacy from another editor as I've just seen from that guy on Bianchi's talk page. If he continues, I'll report him for deleting your comment (at least twice) and restoring vandalism to a BLP. ] (]) 09:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


'''Redirects''': Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see ], ], and spend some time at ].
== Re: Edits to the "Gamergate controversy" article ==


'''Discussions with the WMF''' The ] signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted ] in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as {{noping|Novem Linguae}} and {{noping|MPGuy2824}} have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also ] with the NPP coordinators to discuss ] that new users see.
I think it would be best at this point if you either refrained from further edits to the Gamergate page or toned down on your frequency. You have made 61 of the last 500 edits to the article and are the second most frequent editor within that period. At this point I believe it would be best if less invested contributors took over. If you have any concerns about NPOV or SPAs, your argument will be strengthened by relegating such observations to the appropriate resolution channels and engaging the community in these issues. In this spirit, I will also refrain from making any further edits to the article and limit myself to suggestions on the talk page.--] (]) 21:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
:there is no value in people who are "less invested" in Misplaced Pages's policies and representing the reliable sources having more editing of the article. -- ] 21:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
:If every SPA devoted to introducing nonsense about living people into this article similarly agreed to not edit, I might consider this. But Titanium Dragon won't even agree to *not mention Zoe Quinn for a month*, so invested are they in depicting her negatively. So no. ] (]) 22:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


{{refbegin}}
== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==
;Reminders
]
*Newsletter feedback - please take this ] about the newsletter.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic ].
*There is live chat with patrollers on the .
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> — ] (]) 16:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
*Please add ] to your watchlist.
*If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at ].
*To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself ].
{{refend}}
</div>
<!-- Drafted by User:MB, Reviewed by Novem Linguae, Kudpung -->
<!-- Message sent by User:MB@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1130464022 -->


== New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023 ==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">

<!-- do not use ;Header to make bold headers per ], causes errors for screen readers -->
==Your video game journalism revert==
{| style="float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF;

|}
Why did you revert the allegations of several other people other than Nathan Grayson saying they're not relevent people? These other people were also accused for harming journalistig integrity. --] (]) 11:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},
:Your sentence makes literally no sense, and this discussion belongs on the article's talk page. Please take your issues there. ] (]) 11:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
{| style="float: right;
::It makes sense but the fact that other 4 people who have received accusations were not mentioned in mainstream media for some reason is still notable. --] (]) 12:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
|- style="font-size: 86%;"
:::Well, no, it makes no sense, because "accused for harming journalistic integrity" is not a comprehensible phrase. What is "harming journalistic integrity," which reliable source made the accusations and is there any substantiation for any of the claims? ] (]) 14:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

== Formal mediation has been requested ==
{{Ivmbox
| <!---MedComBot-Do-not-remove-this-line-Notified-GamerGate (controversy)--->The ] has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "GamerGate (controversy)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. ] is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the ], the ], and the ], '''please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate.''' Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.<br>
<small>Message delivered by ] (]) on ] of the Mediation Committee. 05:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)</small>
}}

== Do me a solid ==

I'm staying out of that hell hole. 5 edit conflicts in 2 minutes. Could you please replace the "ingrained" source with one of the suitable ones you mentioned? Always a pleasure ]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 05:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
:I would do so happily, but the article's full-prot for another... week, I think? Yeah, it's a debacle. ] (]) 05:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

== AN3 ==

Titanium Dragon etc—] (]) 07:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yellow Sandals is rehashing the content dispute on AN now.—] (]) 07:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

== Request for mediation rejected ==
{{Ivmbox
| The ] concerning GamerGate (controversy), to which you were listed as a party, has been ]. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the ], which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the ] of the Committee, or to the ]. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see ].

For the Mediation Committee, ] (]) 15:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)<br>
<small>(Delivered by ], ] the Mediation Committee.)</small>
}}

== Milo Yiannopoulos article ==

Hi, I was looking at the article on the person in question and it seems like someone simply copied the section from the Gamergate article with minor changes , and some of the sources I find questionable eg Techcrunch, Reason, and the claims that he experienced harassment. Can you take a look at it? TY --] (]) 08:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for October 25==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
* ];
* ].

Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice -->

==GamerGate sanctions==
{{Ivmbox
|'''Please read this notification carefully:'''<br>A ] has authorised the use of ] for pages related to the ].<br>The details of these sanctions are described ].

] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged ]. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
| Commons-emblem-notice.svg
| icon size = 50px}}

In case you were unaware.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

== Note on the removal of article tagging (Tropes vs. Women in video games) ==

Hello, I recently noticed that you removed the tag I put on the article . I am kinda new to flagging articles that need improvement on Misplaced Pages, and I was wondering if I made a mistake in how I flagged it. What I wanted to accomplish was to have the article slightly cleaned up because some of the information in it, to me at least, appears to be opinionated and does not appear to be written from a neutral point of view. Is there a way I could have done this better? <br />
] (]) 19:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
:When you tag an article, particularly one as contentious as that one, you need to open a discussion on the talk page expressing your specific issues with the article. Merely dropping a tag in the article and walking away is "drive-by tagging" and not considered good form or helpful, especially when it is a well-established article with significant edits such as that one.
:That is, the tag doesn't tell us anything other than your very general opinion that there is a very general issue. For issues to be fairly discussed and addressed by a consensus decision, they need to be explained and discussed. Hope this helps. ] (]) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
::Hello. Thank you for letting me know what I did wrong. I did some research and did find that it is in fact a very controversial article which in fact has been vandalized multiple times. I am not quite sure why I did not open up a discussion, but if I visit that article again and do decide for good that it appears to not be written from a neutral point of view, I will leave that tag and open up discussion.
::Sorry for any inconvenience that I caused <br />
::] (]) 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

==Edit warring==
] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].

'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page 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 three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr -->. Edit warring violates ], if continued, you risk general sanctions. ] <small>]</small> 03:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Dreadstar}} I'm pretty sure that's only two reverts I've made in the last 24 hours and both on separate issues. I made a significant rewrite to address TDA's concerns about criminal connotations, by rewriting to exclude the word "bribe". I'm trying to avoid the classic revert war, and neither of my reverts have been untouched reverts — both have involved efforts to rewrite the content to achieve a consensus version. ] (]) 03:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
::Per ], "''it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.''" Please also review ] for edit warring exemptions. ] <small>]</small> 03:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Dreadstar}} Right, but I don't see this as an edit war... *yet* — if TDA reverts it back out and I reverted it back in, then I agree I'd be edit-warring. I made an effort to put forward a version that addresses TDA's concerns... if TDA isn't satisfied and takes it out again, I'll leave it be. ] (]) 03:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Also please note this: "''The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period''". ] <small>]</small> 03:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Dreadstar}} I made one legitimate effort at addressing the issue and if TDA wants to reject it, c'est la vie, I wasn't planning to engage in a stale revert-war over it. Thanks for the heads-up. ] (]) 03:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to claim ], then I suggest you and the other reverting editors claim it in the edit summary. Actually, on those articles - I wouldn't recommend even using BRD, the Gamergate General Sanctions are very strict. ] <small>]</small> 03:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

== Do you know the source for this? ==

I'd like to see if you know the source for this is. {{tq|The unorganized, leaderless movement has hitherto been unwilling or unable to distance itself from continued harassment.}} I'd rather ask you than go to the talk because it'll just be another needless section clogging up the page. ] (]) 23:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
:There's already discussion of it on the talk page — see "Last paragraph of the lede." It's a concise paraphrase of a point that any number of sources have made about the fact that the movement's complete lack of anything resembling identifiable leadership or organization prevents it from doing anything meaningful to stop the harassment carried out under its name. ] (]) 23:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
:: Alright, thanks. ] (]) 23:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

== JournoList ==

It is rather remarkable that two accounts show up that only have edited years ago and they speak for mr. Editwarrior. Less remarkable is the revert by an IP. This is clear block evasion and reported as such. Unless you are quicker, I will throw in an sockpuppet investigation later today. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 11:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
:Hmmm, a SPI-case seems a dance on rather thin ice. I am not doing it after all. But it is strange what is happening. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 20:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

== Arbitration case request(Gamergate) declined ==

An arbitration case request(Gamergate), involving you, has been archived, because the request was declined.

The made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--]] 13:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

== Gamergate talk page ==

Get in there now so we can discuss why you don't like my edit, lets reach a consensus. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Disambiguation link notification for November 8==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

== Wu article ==

I actually have looked over the sources several times. Only Kotaku calls 8chan a "pro-GamerGate message board", because it is a rather absurd characterization as 8chan predates GamerGate by nearly a year. The quote from Wu is only in the Kotaku article. None of the other sources mention the quote. The "for, among other things, making illogical claims and misogynistic threats" material does not appear to be backed by any actual source. Nowhere in the Boston Globe piece is anything of that nature stated. When unnecessary material that supports a specific POV can either not be backed by a source or can only be backed by a non-independent source, then it clearly does not belong in the article. You inserted these extraneous details to push your POV and nothing more.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
:No, Kotaku is not the only site saying so and it's trivial to demonstrate otherwise. etc. etc. The fact that 8chan predates GamerGate does not prohibit us from describing it as a pro-GamerGate messageboard, which it obviously is and has become. If you would prefer NYMag's "unofficial headquarters of the online Gamergate movement" or "the site most responsible for the online Gamergate movement" or "the main staging ground for supporters of the Gamergate movement" wording, we can use that.
:Kotaku is a perfectly usable source for this matter and you have no consensus for your ludicrous claim that it isn't.
:The Boston Globe states that Wu "mocked members of a shadowy and threatening gaming movement called GamerGate, ridiculing them for, among other things, “fighting an apocalyptic future where women are 8 percent of programmers and not 3 percent.” If you'd prefer, rather than a paraphrase, I'll just use the direct quote. ] (]) 05:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
::You seem to enjoy source-bombing and quote-bombing to push your POV, no matter how extraneous the material. Unsurprisingly, the only two sources, both of questionable reliability, that you cite above calling 8chan "pro-GamerGate" cited Kotaku. Reality is, stating it was in a GamerGate-related discussion suffices. Nothing you added about 8chan supposedly being pro-GamerGate, nor the quote of Wu's opinion on culpability, actually adds information of value. It also all comes from Kotaku, who undeniably have a horse in this race, more than any outlet. You and other POV-pushers refusing to understand that a controversy primarily concerning a specific media outlet means that media outlet should not be regarded as a third-party source on the matter is irrelevant. WP:RS is clear that third-party sources are required. If it is not a third-party source then it is basically a primary source and primary sources should not be used for contentious material. Lastly, your surmising of The Boston Globe is one more thing colored by your desire to push your POV. Providing a quote from one of the satirical image macros is not the same as quoting GamerGate supporters, which should be obvious. It also makes no mention of them being mocked "for making misogynistic threats", which still does not resolve the problem of you wording the material so as to present the "illogical statements and misogynistic threats" claim as fact when it is opinion.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
:::All of it demonstrably adds information of value. Noting that 8chan is pro-GamerGate establishes the connection between the site, the harassment and the movement. The statement It was a paraphrase of "threatening movement" based upon that and the umpteen squillion other sources which discuss that aspect of the movement; but you knew that already, didn't you.
:::As for "POV-pusher," well, the pot would certainly know what color the kettle is. ] (]) 06:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Except, there is no indication given in the sources that the image macro was mocking them for that, nor do the sources generally treat it as fact that somehow these threats are all from GamerGate supporters. You can cry POV-pusher all you like, but I find people to be regularly torn between whether my edits are favorable or unfavorable to a given side. Many on both sides have considered my work on the content to be neutral. Of course, it can be very hard for a POV-pusher to recognize neutrality, so it is not surprising that you mistake my editing for POV-pushing rather than as an attempt to prevent you from making non-neutral edits.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 06:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::Yep, I'm sure a ''ton'' of people find you to be making neutral edits on this subject. ] (]) 06:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

== Did not mean that ==

On GamerGate page, the most recent edit. I just remember Red had inserted all of that 'some' before supporters so I searched for that and changed it accordingly--This was ignorance not malice. I have no intention of deliberately making things more eschewed than they really are. Apologies for such. ^^ ] (]) 00:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
:Yeah, I figured it was just a find-and-replace issue, just wanted to be sure. There's a lot of things I disagree with GG about but I'm pretty sure that false-flag crowd is a discredited fringe even within GG, which is to their credit that they've largely rejected that nonsense. ] (]) 00:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

== ArbCom notification ==

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
* ];
* ].

Thanks,--] <sub>] ]</sub> 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

== Were we reading the same thread? ==

They were searching for misconduct on Misplaced Pages and weren't trying to dox anyone. The Patreon thing was posted by a single user and was just into the fray--around 500 other people's posts. Sure, maybe they were a bit hysterical and everything like it, posting old screenshots taken out of context (the one where Ryulong and you mentioned to let him 'hang himself' a guise to ]) but trying to say that they're investigating anyone or doxxing anyone involved in the ArbCom Case is a bit disingenuous to what they were actually doing; trying to help Pro GG on the ArbCom case with their numbers by providing links and what not. Or does one person represent the entire group? ] (]) 05:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
:Yeah, because "SCOUR TWITTER, TUMBLR, WORDPRESS, ANYTHING FOR RYULONG, TARAINDC, THEREDPENOFDOOM, OR NORTHBYHEADUPASS" is good-faith discussion of Misplaced Pages policy issues, right? ] (]) 05:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

== on Digra ==

Just fyi, I was in the process of adding more on digra, and used a different quote from mia that I think was a bit more relevant/direct but paraphrased the other one you added. Not trying to step on toes, just working to same end on that section. --] (]) 00:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you so much for keeping the "Gamergate controversy" article in line with reality. Very appreciated. ] (]) 02:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
|} |}
]
'''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 {{Noping|Hey man im josh}} who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by {{noping|Meena}} and {{noping|Greyzxq}} with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See ] 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.
== Stop it. ==


'''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 ].
Stop edit warring on Arbcom pages. If you believe this information needs to be seen, send it by email. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 09:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Worm That Turned}} Yes, I stopped quite awhile ago — once I realized that DHeyward was hell-bent on revert-warring it out, I dropped the stick and let it go. ] (]) 10:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


'''WMF work on PageTriage''': The ], consisting of {{noping|Samwalton9 (WMF)|label1=Sam|JSherman (WMF)|label2=Jason|SCardenas (WMF)|label3=Susana}}, and also some patches from {{noping|Jon (WMF)|label1=Jon}}, has been hard at work ]. 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 ] where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of ], to help find bugs. We will post more details at ] when we are ready for beta testers.
==Video game journalism==
When removing the recent vandalism from this article, your change may have been removed as well:
:"However, Grayson never reviewed ''Depression Quest'' and had not written anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship"
] <small>]</small> 02:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


'''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 ] like was required previously). To install the ], visit ], visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit ], 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.
== Gamergate request ==


You can review the AFC workflow at ]. 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 ], so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Please note the instruction for your statement in the ] request for a case:
:''Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words.''
Your statement is at 1026 words, so is well over the limit. Please recall that this statement is not intended to be a full exposition of all evidence, which occurs at the next step, but simply a statement requesting a case. Please trim back your statement. ''For the arbitration committee''--]] 19:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


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


{{refbegin}}
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to ''you'' in particular.<p>The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when ] in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.<p>If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied ''from the draft'', rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the is very useful for sussing that out.)<p>If you do find a copyright violation, please ''do not'' decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Misplaced Pages to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using <nowiki>{{db-g12|url=</nowiki><tt>URL of source</tt>}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with <nowiki>{{subst:copyvio|url=</nowiki><tt>URL of source</tt>}}.<p>Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with ]; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.<p> I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--] (]) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sent via--] (]) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
'''Reminders'''
<!-- Message sent by User:Fuhghettaboutit@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Fuhghettaboutit/AfC_SpamList&oldid=634304948 -->
*Newsletter feedback - please take this ] about the newsletter.

*There is live chat with patrollers on the and {{IRC|wikimedia-npp}} on IRC.
== Can Haz Cheezburger ==
*Please add ] to your watchlist.

*To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself ].
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:brown; background-color:gold; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]
{{refend}}

<font style="font-family:script;font-size:16px;vertical-align:top;position:relative;top:-13px;">&#8610; ]] &#8611;</font> haz givn u ]! Cheezburgrs promot ] and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins! <br />

''Thanks for the resolution for ]. It was far more elegant and fair than what I had thought of.<br><br>Also, thank you for being one of the reasonable voices in the GG article. I know this wikiluvz is late, but hope you'll still accept it :).''

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all ] buddiez by addin {{tls|Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.
{{clear}}
</div> </div>
<!-- Drafted by Novem Linguae, MPGuy2824 and Zippybonzo. Sent by Zippybonzo. -->
<!-- Template:Cheezburgr -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Zippybonzo@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1160196052 -->


== A classic example of what's wrong with BLP == == New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive ==


{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
I noted your edit summary ]. I should think that if the source were not RS, the Guardian would not be be risking its reputation by using it in a report. Neither would the Washington Post be to this "incident report published by the Free Thought Project". Do you seriously believe the police report scans were faked? If you are going to believe this is a fraud, what DO you believe? I think RS policy is being misused if people are not citing it with a good faith belief that the material at issue is truly of questionable factual accuracy.--] (]) 22:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | ] | <span style="font-size: 85%">''']''' </span>
:Why not, then, just use the reliable sources that picked it up? I am opposed to using any questionable sources to support negative allegations or assertions about living people. This goes as much for this source which presents negative claims about Darren Wilson as it does for the numerous fringe sources which present negative claims about Michael Brown. ] (]) 22:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
| rowspan=3 | ]
::Because the particular facts indicate that it's already RS in this particular case (no matter how one might generalize), especially if other RS are treating it as RS, and we should be transparent to the reader about where material originates. Both the Guardian and the Washington Post are careful to indicate to readers where they got this from. We can and should take similar care. For my part, I don't support the laundering sources through other sources doctrine which instead of seeing the additional coverage as adding incrementally to the argument for inclusion, sees it as effectively turning water into wine. The story is ultimately just as dubious as the original source if there is only one source. If laundering actually works, then we as Wikipedians ought to be trying to develop the same sorts of reliability assessment skills the launderers have so we can make the same sort of skilled assessment should a launderer not be immediately available. Show me someone who cites a primary source for whom it's usually just a matter of time until secondary sources cite in turn and I'd call that someone a presumptively astute judge of both reliability and notability. Instead of developing and respecting those skills I see editors not bothering to consider the plausibility of what's claimed and instead making blanket judgments about what is or is not RS without concern for whether the judgment is shown to be sound over time or not. I for one, am opposed to using questionable sources PERIOD when what makes the source questionable is hidden from the reader. Letting questionable sourcing go if it flatters someone is a double violation of both RS and NPOV in my books. I note that you contradicted yourself by saying you are opposed to "...assertions about living people" and then saying "this goes as much for" someone who is dead. If it TRULY "goes as much" for the dead guy as for the guy who shot him then we wouldn't have a BLP policy and I wouldn't be complaining!~--] (]) 23:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

== Brewing edit war on ] ==

I'm not going to get sucked into an edit war with you. I've made a section on the ] specifically for discussing who initiated the controversy. Listing those two people is also , to use the terms from your edit summary. Come discuss why you think you think "commentators" is right on the talk page. ] (]) 06:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, not everything a writer for ''The Washington Post'' writes is '''in''' ''The Washington Post''. Did you read my edit summary explaining why I removed the quote? Come discuss on the article talk page. ] (]) 06:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

== Apology ==

I'm sorry for lashing out at you the other day. It was a huge mistake of me to do that and I sincerely apologize. I ask forgiveness from you. --] ] 02:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
:Thank you, I appreciate that. ] (]) 03:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

== ] opened ==

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

== FactualError in your Arbcom Report ==

Scroll up to "A Kitten for you" on your talk page. Diego accidentally pressed the revert button. I'm to only one to blame there not him.] (]) 07:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

== Anita Talk Page ==
Please do not edit my comment again. Looking at your history I see you have been obsessed with anti-gamergate and other related pages. Your unwarranted edit of my comment discussing well known facts surrounding Anita's career is not only unethical in the sense of trying to cover up information but it's also harassing to me personally. I would ask that you please leave me, and my comments, alone in the future. Thank you. ] (]) 08:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Xander756}} That's not going to happen. Removing material which violates, or probably violates, the ] is expressly provided for by policy, and I suggest you familiarize yourself with that policy. Such removals are not, in any sense of the word, "harassment." Rather, violations of the policy generally lead to rather speedy blocks, and that doesn't need to happen to you if you can engage in sensible discussion on the talk page. ] (]) 08:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.

Don't feel like making a new thread. I think fits into your evidence rather than mine atm.—] (]) 10:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
*Ha, I find the both of you in one section--very convenient. ], NorthBySouthbaranof, y'all's zeal and incisive commentary is of course greatly appreciated but at some point a flood of contributions becomes counterproductive. I can't ask you all to stop chatting and tweeting and blogging and whatnot (as {{U|Gamaliel}} said elsewhere, how do you all find the time? who does the dishes in your house?), but if you both could refrain from responding to every single frigging comment on the ArbCom pages, that would be GREAT. You don't ''have'' to counter every single pro-GamerGate comment or whatever--really, the world is not going to end if you refrain every now and then. Thank you. ] (]) 01:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
**Oh Lord, believe me, I have absolutely no interest in chatting or tweeting or blogging about this debacle. I don't even have a Reddit account and I'm frankly rather bemused at the whole idea of it. ] (]) 02:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
*:I'm only responding to the ones that I think are bunk or intentionally out of context.—] (]) 02:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

== Length of Arbcom Evidence ==

The standard limits ArbCom evidence submissions are 1000 words. I count your evidence submission currently at 1776 words (not including Rebuttal). Just thought you might want to know so you can trim it down a bit (or you can request more room). --] (]) 06:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

== Evidence limits ==

Your ] is well over the limit of 1000 words. I am still checking to see whether the limit is inclusive of responses to others, but even if those are excepted, you are over 1300 words. You either need explicit permission from one of the drafting arbs, or you need to trim your evidence. ''For the arbitration committee'' --]] 22:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:I just learned that the drafting arbs are thinking through what to do about evidence limits. One possibility is an increase, so feel free to hold off making a change at this time. I hope to have more advice soon.''For the arbitration committee'' --]] 22:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks, although frankly as a party in this, I hope they don't expand it too significantly. 1,500 would be plenty and anything more just goes far into the realm of overkill. Reasonable limits are appreciated. ] (]) 22:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

== Gamergate evidence limits ==

The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:
* Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
* The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
* Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. ''For the arbitration committee'' --]] 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

== Question about Gamergate talk page ==

With Willhesucceed's latest "source" now on the talk page, I'm thinking it might be a good time to combine that with Carrite's suggested "source" and Avono's suggested "source" and request a finding from ArbCom in the ongoing case that says editors who link sources that contain BLP violating material can be sanctioned. However I've never been party to an ArbCom case before and I'm not sure if it really belongs there or not. I would say it goes under the general sanctions for the Gamergate page, except that instead of it being a single user being disruptive, it's a pattern of disruptive behavior from several editors all doing the same inappropriate thing, so I'm not sure how to phrase a request there either. Can you point me in the right direction to figure out where and how to properly raise this issue? ] (]) 23:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

== 'The Effects of the Sexualization of Female Video Game Characters on Gender Stereotyping and Female Self-Concept' ==

hi NBSB,

You say "You need to read the study, because it's cited in there.".
The deletion was the result of reading the study and finding no in it talking about the text in there.

But perhaps I overlooked it. Could you be so kind as to show me where it says in the study?

] (]) 08:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|GameLegend}} Page 2 of the document, page 809 of the journal. In fact, some of it is a direct quote without the quote marks (hence, copyvio) and I'll take a crack at a paraphrase. {{tq|The vast majority of female characters have been found to be non-playable, meaning that they cannot be played by the gamer - thus underscoring their secondary and exiguous status. When playable female characters do appear in video games, they are typically overtly sexualized and portrayed wearing promiscuous dress and engaging in seductive acts.}} ] (]) 08:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
::Ah k. Thanks.
::Though that quote is attributed to another study, so I'd suggest using the original study that it comes from as reference.
::''Miller, M. K., & Summers, A. (2007). Gender differences in video game characters’ roles, appearances, and attire as portrayed in video game magazines. Sex Roles, 57, 733–742.''
::] (]) 08:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Yeah, whoever originally inserted it didn't quite take the sourcing all the way that they could. ] (]) 08:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Miller-Summers 2007 in turn linked to Ivory 2006, which as it turns out have used online reviews as proxies, rather than looking at the video games (and referred only to top-rated games, not all video games); I've updated the article accordingly. The sentence "the vast majority of female characters have been found to be non-playable" was dubious to begin with; it's best to find the original paper and see what it says and how it conducted the study. Quotes by people citing the original paper tend to be opinions of the writer and not as reliable as the real thing. Id' say that "taking the sourcing all the way that they could" should be required when using academic papers as references. ] (]) 14:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Good Humor'''
|- |-
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | -- ] 08:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
* On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
* Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
* Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
* ] will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
* Barnstars will also be granted for ] previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
* Interested in taking part? ''']'''.
|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself ]
|} |}
] (]) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1263150419 -->
== ]: evidence and workshop ==

In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the ] not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the ] is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add instead of diffs.

The ] builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) <small>Message delivered by ] (])</small>
<!-- Message sent by User:Callanecc@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Callanecc/sandbox&oldid=637436050 -->

== libellous ==

When a newspaper believes they have published false information they print a retraction that notes their error. There is a reason for that: Public figures, like Quinn, have to prove malice. Retractions eliminate malice. The Amherst writer repeated Quinns ex-boyfriends post as fact without attribution. There are plenty of sources that simply say alleged and then also go on to prove right/wrong. The choice Amherst had was republish with attribution or remove. Attribution exists for everything you called false (ex-BF and TFYC make the same claims as agrieved parties). The attributions are too weak to include in Misplaced Pages but Misplaced Pages's standards are no where close to libel standards. Think about it: {{redacted}} yet no lawsuits for libel/defamation. Considering I can find the article in question, if she had a case a lawyer would file it if only to get that retraction. The lack of a retraction and the lack of a lawsuit flies in the face of "clearly actionable." --] (]) 09:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:No, we don't know that Quinn has done any such thing regarding YouTube. Your evidence to support that claim is what, exactly?
:Claiming that "if the article had said something different than it actually said, it wouldn't be libel" is not a defense to anything. We can only hypothesize as to what Quinn may or may not know about the article's existence. ] (]) 09:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
::Nor can we hypothesize about the reason they took it down. Claims that a living person (William Harvey) committed a crime (defamatory libel) is a BLP violation. Stop saying it was libel and defamation when you have no idea. True and not true is fine and not the same thing. Forbes article comments on the takedown requests. --] (]) 14:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Libel is not a criminal offense in the United States, and it is not a BLP violation to reasonably suggest that a piece of writing may be libelous. You are the only person who has mentioned any names here.
:::The Forbes source does not support your factual claim, being only an unproven allegation of a single instance - a far cry from your absurd statement. I have accordingly redacted it. Have a nice day. ] (]) 18:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

== ] ==

The mere presence of my name on the article or its talk page will cause a riot online, even if it's just making a minor correction, so could you fix the fact that there's nothing bolded in the article's lede?—] (]) 06:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Also I just found an extraneous apostrophe later in the article: <blockquote>Alyssa Rosenberg of ''The Washington Post''' said that some</blockquote>—] (]) 06:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

And an extra space before the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag at the end of that same sentence.—] (]) 06:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"The Colbert Report" also isn't italicized.—] (]) 06:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

ANd now with a mention of "Depression Quest" is not italicized.—] (]) 06:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

== Gamergate, why? ==

Why go to all this effort when your edits will certainly be undone once you're topic banned?
:I think you're going to be sadly disappointed if you expect me to be topic-banned. ] (]) 21:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
::For sanity's sake I hope santa gets you a new hobby this Christmas. Season's greetings nerd. --] (]) 21:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:24, 18 December 2024

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello NorthBySouthBaranof,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Misplaced Pages or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello NorthBySouthBaranof,

New Page Review queue December 2022
Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello NorthBySouthBaranof,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

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

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
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) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)