If you are here to tell me that a page I nominated for speedy deletion will be staying, please do not leave a message informing me of it. My reasons for nominating them for deletion are purely out of good faith. If I notice any of the articles that I speedied ends up staying, I will automatically know why. If I feel an article should not be on Wikipedia nonetheless, I will go through the normal process of nominating an article for deletion.
If you require the immediate help of an admin, please seeWP:HAU. And no, I'm not one.
Hello Crackthewhip775, Filper01 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for taking the time to leave me an explanation, which really wasn't necessary, but appreciated all the same. I do edit also under an account, contributing to articles and reverting vandalism, but I like to patrol new pages anonymously. Keep up the good work, 99.184.128.247 (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Crack the whip, hope you don't mind, but I've declined the speedy deletion of Michael Chua as I take the awards section as an assertion of notability ϢereSpielChequers 15:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but if you look at the notice atop my talk page, I make it clear that I don't want any messages about articles that I speedied. If I think the article shouldn't be here nonetheless, I'll just nominate it for normal deletion. --Whipit!Now whip it good! 21:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case there's a thread at WT:RFA#CSD tagging which you might want to see. ϢereSpielChequers 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the first time an article I have speedied ended up staying, (in which case, I just go back to the article and read the edit summary of the admin who declined the speedy deletion to know why) but I've been patrolling the new pages only recently, and when there's an article I have doubts about speedying, I just prod it or ask an admin if it's appropriate for deletion. I'm not reckless about it, especially I've been granted NPWatcher and I know it can be revoked anytime if I abuse it. But thanks for notifying me about the discussion on this. Whipit!Now whip it good! 22:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the concern we've got is that unlike you many taggers aren't monitoring that, and many admins aren't giving such feedback. But also that only works when a speedy is declined, often what happens is that speedies are deleted but under a different code, and we need to give feedback on that because it can mean that the wrong message goes out to the article creators. ϢereSpielChequers 23:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Crackthewhip775. You have new messages at User talk:Dank55/Apr. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Crackthewhip775. You have new messages at Xp54321's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. Abce2|AccessDenied 04:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, neutrality concerns over the criminal conviction of Chris Brown have been raised on the talk page. Since you have been previously involved in the discussion, will you answer the request for comment? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult) 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Crackthewhip775! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New deal for page patrollers
Hi Crackthewhip775,
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
