Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mcmatter: 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 19:12, 26 May 2015 editLordelephapia (talk | contribs)19 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:49, 11 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,661 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Mcmatter/Archive 10) (botTag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{no talkback}}'''Please do not use talkback templates, if I have started a conversation on your talk page I will have your page on my watchlist and will know if you reply. On the other side of the coin if you start a conversation on my talk page I will reply on my talk page and will not leave a talkback template on your talk page so please watch for my response.'''


{{talk header}} {{talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K |maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 2 |counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 0
|algo = old(14d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:Mcmatter/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Mcmatter/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|age=14|bot=MiszaBot III}}
{{Signpost-subscription}} {{Signpost-subscription}}


== New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023 ==
== Borve - tags ==

Hi,

You have added tags to the article on ].

One states that

"''This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.''"


<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">
Please can you identify which statements in the article require references in your opinion.
<!-- do not use ;Header to make bold headers per ], causes errors for screen readers -->
{| style="float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF;
|}
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},
{| style="float: right;
|- style="font-size: 86%;"
|}
]
'''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.
The only two references that the article contained before my revision were to a road users' site (to verify what number road the village is on) and a Scottish places site (to verify what larger administrative area it is part of). Those references seem completely unnecessary because the information is not seriously open to challenge and in the event that someone does read the article and think "''Hey, you're saying the village is on the A857 - well that's an assertion I challenge!''", they can easily go and verify it elsewhere, just as if someone challenges the assertion that London is located in England.


'''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 ].
The second states that


'''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.
"''This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.''"


'''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.
Please can you decide whether you think it does or does not contain original research and if you decide you think it does, please can you identify which claims you think should be either verified or removed.


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.
Thanks! ] (]) 10:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Lordelephapia}}, thank you for the message I have cleared up most of the problems with the article, I have removed almost everything which was not supported by a reference. If you can find ] to support the claims please feel free to reinstate them using proper ] methods. Removing references from an article is normally not a good thing, by removing them you remove the ability for anyone to verify anything in the article, and Misplaced Pages policy is that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed. Next time you are looking a removing any reference ask yourself the following questions;
::Is the reference supporting anything in the article?
::If I remove this reference am I making it more difficult for someone not from the area to verify information?
::Is there already another reference supporting the same claim?
:Hopefully these questions will help when deciding if you should remove references in an article.For the most part references should not be removed, even if they are deadlinks.- ] <sup>(])</sup>/<sub>(])</sub> 11:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:::It's as if you didn't read what you're replying to properly. Removing almost everything that's not supported by a reference is completely uncalled for, and you have not argued the contrary. Misplaced Pages policy is not "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed".] (]) 12:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:::What is the source for your claim that Misplaced Pages policy is "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed". Have you got a reference?] (]) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
::::This is simple take a read through ] and ] both basically state all, but the most obvious, claims require references or inline citations, the entire content I removed from the page had nothing for verification of the information, the onus is now on you or who ever wants to add information back to ].- ] <sup>(])</sup>/<sub>(])</sub> 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::So you are rowing back and saying that rather than "if it isn't referenced it (...) should be removed", which is what you first said, the policy is in fact that that applies only when claims are not among "the most obvious". You also say that it's "simple". And you say that the policies on original research and verification "basically" (a clear case of a ]) support your understanding of the policy on the requirement for references. Well I claim there is no Misplaced Pages policy that says, "basically" or otherwise, that all claims, or all claims other than the most obvious, must be referenced. If there is such a policy, it would patently obviously be published and I ask you again to post a specific link to it if you think it exists, not a link to long policy articles that you think "basically" communicate that policy or have it as their gist. Those documents are full of summary sentences and you should be able to point to a sentence or paragraph to back up your assertion if you maintain its accuracy. Using words such as "simple", "obviously" and "basically", even were they to be used in grammatically correct sentences, cannot obscure the fact that having been asked to cite a source for your very specific claim about Misplaced Pages's policy you have not yet done so. Please consider the possibility that your understanding of it is mistaken.


'''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).
:::::If you wish to challenge some of the statements that were made in this article before you deleted most of it, please do so.


{{refbegin}}
:::::Millions of articles at this website contain unreferenced assertions. That's easily verifiable by choosing one at random linked from the main page.] (]) 18:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
'''Reminders'''
*Newsletter feedback - please take this ] about the newsletter.
*There is live chat with patrollers on the and {{IRC|wikimedia-npp}} on IRC.
*Please add ] to your watchlist.
*To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself ].
{{refend}}
</div>
<!-- Drafted by Novem Linguae, MPGuy2824 and Zippybonzo. Sent by Zippybonzo. -->
<!-- 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 -->

Latest revision as of 18:49, 11 January 2025

This is Mcmatter's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 7 days 

The Signpost
24 December 2024

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Mcmatter,

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