User talk:Jack Frost/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Planys Technologies

It was actually deleted at the time of the closure, but it was re-created a few days later. I've deleted it as G4. Peridon (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Peridon: Thanks! The article was dodgy then, and it had not been improved in its absence... --Jack Frost (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

BeIN Channels Network

The maintenance tags that you added to BeIN Channels Network are already removed by the same IP that is adding the long list of channels. Not unlikely that we have a corporate spammer here. The Banner talk 18:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Banner: In all honesty, I'm not in the least bit surprised. I've retagged the article, and I'm still pondering whether or not I think I can reasonably submit it to AfD for debate or whether to leave it alone for a bit and observe... --Jack Frost (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Sending it to AfD is useless. The channel is on it own noteworthy enough and that will make the keep-faction to vote for keep. They don't look at the spammy content at all but will accuse you of a bad faith nomination. That they undermine the "no advertising"-policies is beyond their grasp. The Banner talk 08:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

UFC 209 Vandalism

Your account will be reported if you keep vandalising the UFC 209 page. DaveA2424 (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@DaveA2424: How about a little WP:AGF? If you actually looked at what I was in the middle of doing, it was a multi-stage revert of ongoing vandalism; I reverted a whole mass of edits (including some of your reverts) to the best previous version of the page, then was going through the rest of them to revert each individual instance of vandalism...--Jack Frost (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It looked more to me like you were reverting my corrections back to the vandalism. How could I have possibly known your intentions in doing so? It would have been a better idea to undo the vandalism, rather than undo the corrects of the person who is undoing the vandalism, thus reverting it back to the vandalism. That seems like a fairly simple concept to me. DaveA2424 (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The page has now been semi-protected and everything is as it should be, so this should no longer be an issue. DaveA2424 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

no title

Pretty clear you're carrying water for Sebastian Gorka, and removing anything that reveals he's lied about his military service, doesn't have a security clearance because he can't get one with all his weighty baggage, and has a sordid past with other Hungarian anti-Semites. Why are you removing edits that are sourced to FOREIGN POLICY, HUNGARY NEWS TODAY, and other major news outlets? What does it take to get the truth told? Sure, Gorka has a billionaire in-law, Breitbart and FOX News, and a president behind him, but why are you protecting him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.84.82 (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Artist deletions

The two artists you nominated at AfD (Joan Braderman and Nela Arias-Misson) are clear keeps. Together, they have 11 keep votes and zero delete votes besides your nominaton, so your nominations are way off. Are you aware of the need to do WP:BEFORE before nominating articles like this?104.163.152.90 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Phillip Leo

Philip Leo himself wrote the original content here [1] which was then presumably copied by Islandah Radio to here [2] So the article is an autobiography but because he has released the content under a creative commons license we can use it apparently. Theroadislong (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd run the text through some plagiarism finding software I have and it didn't find that page... I'll have to give it a bit of a thumping and find out why that wasn't found. Apologies and thanks! --Jack Frost (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Theroadislong, in a classic case of PEBKAC, I had left it set to local websites only... Trouting accepted and thoroughly deserved. Many thanks once again. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I still think it's rather contentious that it's allowed, to write your own sources for an article about yourself! Theroadislong (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Jack Frost. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Alex Shih (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Butt Report

Did you intend to make this edit? It seems to me that you reverted a fix to a mistake introduced by this edit. -- PBS (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: Ahah, my mistake. Reverted. Thanks for letting me know... --Jack Frost (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Dude, You rolled me back before I had a chance to include my notes on why every change was made on the laboratory glassware article.

In short the article on laboratory glassware was a disorganized mess which was hard to understand and not informative. I spent 4 hours redoing that article and a good number of those pieces of glassware are in the lab I operate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agriculturist50 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. It looked like a global blank at the time. I've rolled it back to where it was. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

About the wikipedia page of Roorkee

Hi Jack,

My name is Jamal. I am a Resident of Roorkee city (India). I just visted the wikipedia page of Roorkee city "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roorkee" and I found that somebody has deleted a lot of information from that page, like Demographics, Climate, Educational Institutes and other important infos about Roorkee city.

I request you to please re-write those old infos.

Regards Jamal contact me at: jamal.rke12@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:3416:300:B85E:E92C:33F2:9D6C (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jamal, any changes which are made need to be verifiable. That means there needs to be reliable evidence for it. Please see the WP:V policy for further information. The information you added has not been deleted, it has been stored in the history of the page; so if you can find good sources for the information please feel free to add it back. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply

I think this is how I'm supposed to reply to you. My edit wasn't done with the intention of vandalism. I just read that section of the article and it seemed basically to be irrelevant gossip (Factual or not). Imagine if the article on the Theory of Relativity included a paragraph on Einstein marrying his Cousin. I tried to avoid removing any useful information as was seen in my first attempt. 97.100.206.194 (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, the user talk page is the way to discuss reversions which have been made. Well done! So, the reason your edit was reverted wasn't vandalism, it was because it blanked an entire section from a fairly controversial article. Whilst we do encourage editors to be bold, it did not appear (nor does it) to have any form of consensus. Please have a discussion on the talk page prior to any such major changes. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

My changes to Template:X1

You reverted my changes to Template:X1. Is Template:X1 not meant to used for experimenting with templates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niclas Moeslund Overby (talk • contribs) 12:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly the right spot, I missed the "X1" bit on Huggle. My bad. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not revert false information to wiki.

Fight record is here: http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Joanna-Jedrzejczyk-101411

Oops, sorry. That Tony Montana addition most certainly wasn't my creation, I don't know where that came from (though I saw it on previous revision). Good thing you took it out. I meant to edit the fight record.

No worries! --Jack Frost (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hadley freeman

Hello this is the source i would like to add to justify my recent edit of her being a gender tribalist: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/nov/04/evidence-mounting-mans-place-in-home — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:7CC2:8000:50DF:5B86:B1ED:F9E5 (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Thanks. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

/* Anti-Muslim violence */ there is no proof provided for this information. it's a false information which spreads hate, remove it.

Hi Jack,

it's regarding the content removal from the wiki page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garhmukteshwar" please help to remove "/* Anti-Muslim violence */" this section. There is no such evidence provided which claims that these riots were organised by RSS or hindutva extremists. It's a polite request please remove this part, as Garhmuteshwar is an historic place and every year more than 40 lac people visit it. this section spreads hate and false information towards Hindu community. please remove it.

The text is verifiable in reliable sources and appears to be written from a neutral point of view. Just because you disagree with it, does not mean it should not be included. If you have any further issues, please bring them up on the article's talk page Talk:Garhmukteshwar. Thanks. --Jack Frost (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Jack, what if the write was biased when he wrote this book? why do you even want to keep this information? Is there any hidden motive of yours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindprogrammer (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Blindprogrammer: Then find another source which disputes the information, and include the information from that source in the article. To be quite frank, I'd never even heard of this somewhat pokey little town prior to your removal of this content, and nor do I give two thirds of a flying fig about it; my only motive is to help to uphold the policies and guidelines of the project. Policies and guidelines which I suggest you read. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jack: I'm sure, nobody knows everything about every place! and you are not an exception to it!! But the used words by you like "pokey little town" and "two thirds of a flying fig" make me believe that you try to put others down even without having proper knowledge to the subject. It's only just to increase a little of your knowledge, that more than 40 lac people visit Grahmukteshwar in the month of November every year on the occasion of Garh Mela. This is an idea to tell you what is the significance of Grahmuktewshwar :D

Oh, yes!! i will indeed get back to you with another source which disputes the information.

Hi Jack Frost

Hi- I recieved a message from you? im confused about everything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.48.251.214 (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The text you are adding to the article is copied and pasted from [3]. Furthermore, it is neither neutral or appropriately referenced, and was full of peacockery. Please refer to these articles as a starting point prior to adding the text again. Thanks --Jack Frost (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Darryl Morfo

Hi Jack

I am the Secretary of Battersea Ironsides Rugby club http://ironsidesrugby.com, Darryl played at the club until the age of 15, he was in the same team as my son from the age of 7 - does this give the entry credibility?

Richard Cotgrove — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:5B82:6600:6977:9D5B:5F16:5859 (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Richard, not unless you can provide a verifiable, reliable source which outlines this information. Personal accounts are unfortunately neither. Thanks. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Aboriginal people revert.

Hi,

Please stop reverting factually correct information.

Sincerely, Me.

Hi, please stop vandalising wikipedia with racist comments. Sincerely, Me! --Jack Frost (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No --[[User:Jack Frost|Jack Frost]] ([[User talk:Jack Frost#top|talk]]) 07:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Then do enjoy the ban. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Jack subscribe to my youtube

Hi JACK!

  BIG FAN OF YOUR WORK

would you mind subscribing to my yiouthube channe;?

THanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.207.29.213 (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Not likely. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME HEHEHEHEHEHEHE

Wish me a happy bday jacky?

OScar FRAZZAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.207.29.213 (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Also not likely. --Jack Frost (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:STiki!

Hello, Jack Frost, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Information about STiki, including:
- Using STiki and its hotkeys
- Comparison with other tools
Information about vandalism on Wikipedia

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Tanya Burr

Hi Jack,

How come every update on Tanya Burr's page has been removed? You've said one thing didn't have a citation. Happy to cite whatever you need.

We have updated it to make it more current, and everything was correct so it's frustrating to see that it has gone back to where it was.

Thanks, K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prestontaswiki (talk • contribs) 12:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Prestontaswiki: Hi, the reason those edits were undone was none of them had citations, and several of them appeared to be original research. I went back through every one of your edits to the page manually due to your request, and I did not feel comfortable to restore any of them as they were. If you do happen to find citations, you can see the totality of your edits which were undone here. The text which was removed is highlighted in yellow, and the text which you'd deleted which was re-added is in blue. I have also left a message on your talk page here which has some links to some of our most important policies on what material is acceptable and what the requirements for citations are. I hope this explains it somewhat, and if you had any further questions or wanted some help on further edits to the article, then feel free to ask me here, at the article's talk page or ask the nice folks over at the teahouse. Regards, --Jack Frost (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Tanya Burr

Hi Jack,

Thanks for your message. Whilst this has provided some clarity, I am confused still as to why all of the edit have been completely undone. You would be able to validate all the amends by searching Tanya on the internet. The page currently is completely out of date. Is it possible to call someone and talk further? I will do all the amends again, but don't want them to be deleted.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prestontaswiki (talk • contribs) 12:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi "Jack,"

You recently flagged my post on station Aboa as vandalism, when I was adding a fun fact to the page. I was watching a stream when the streamer received a donation from a member posted at the station. This is a factual occurrence and can be traced back in the streamer's VoD. Don't flag other users' edits as vandalism when you don't know what you're talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D020:2690:3CAC:7DF1:D0B8:C291 (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I don't think that was me... I certainly can't find where I edited that page. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I warned you on your talk page but didn't revert the actual edit. It is a piece of original research, come back with a reliable source or discuss it on the article's talk page. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Widr (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

WHY

who will search up nate jakola company anyways so why the fuck should your bitch fucking hoe lick pussy ass care

This delightful little missive was from wowfactor2004, who promptly deleted it soon after leaving it on my talk page. Amazingly, he was not long for this project... --Jack Frost (talk)

sorry

im sorry i hurt ur feelings, are we still freinds tho? yers truly - wowfactor2004

stop

By the way, maybe you should stop policing everything people do on Wikipedia. -wowfactor2004

Book info. Claws

Dear Jack,

I am sorry my post on a published book is being considered for deletion. Not sure what I have done wrong but please let me know how I can improve the addition and I will get to it.

Thanking you kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikiandzaza2016 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kikiandzaza2016: Hi! The reason that the article Claws. Confessions Of A Cat Groomer has been nominated for deletion is that it appears not to be notable.

In order to allow the article to be kept on Wikipedia, you will need to find reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject making it verifiable that the article meets either the notability guideline for books or the general notability guideline.

I looked prior to submitting the article for the deletion review process, however I wasn't able to find anything sufficient. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back jack. I'm still not sure what it is I need to add in terms of secondary info. Could you please give me an example? I have proved it is not fake news and is a published book? --Kikiandzaza (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kikiandzaza2016: No worries! The issue is that you don't just need to prove that a book exists to be included on Wikipedia, you need to provide reliable, secondary sources demonstrating that it meets the agreed criteria for notability. The criteria it should meet are essentially:

This page in a nutshell: A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

The book has been the subject^[1] of two or more non-trivial^[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.^[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,^[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.^[5]
The book has won a major literary award.
The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,^[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.^[7]
The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.

^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
^ Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book.
^ A book's inclusion in a reliable bestseller list is non-trivial treatment if the list is notable or the list is published by a notable media outlet and the list is republished or covered by other reliable sources. Bestseller lists in retailer or e-commerce sources like Amazon or self-published sources like personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, wikis, and similar media are not considered reliable. Social media review sites like Goodreads and LibraryThing do not qualify for this criterion.
^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
^ This includes both primary and secondary schools.
^ This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science.

Peter Cugno

The page also has some sources. Although, I ought to add a source on how his last name is pronounced. Martinc1994 (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jack Frost. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

JAckie bOY

WHOOOOO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE

IT IS NOT DEFAMATORY IF TA T R U E Chickenman222 (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Another message from a troll; reverted by a kindly passing editor. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Richie Gallo

Dear Jack

I created the Richie Gallo page. I made a major mistake though. "Richie" was his nickname. His proper name was Richard Gallo. The wiki page should be Richard Gallo and not Richie Gallo. Richiegallo (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC) How can this error be corrected?

@Richiegallo: My mistake; I've moved the article to Richard Gallo (Performance artist) as there was already an article at Richard Gallo. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Claws. Confessions Of A Cat Groomer

Dear Jack,

A discussion was taking place re my inclusive of a book and editor. I was just going to post several second sources when I noticed the page is gone. Has this been deleted?

May I try again with the new second sources if someone can put the page back?

Hope this is ok to ask?

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikiandzaza2016 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kikiandzaza2016, I'll see if the deleting admin is able to move the article to a Draft for you. Once the article is up to scratch, I'd strongly encourage you to follow the process outlined at Articles for Creation to minimise the risk of the article being deleted again for not meeting our policies. If I can help you with the process, please don't hesitate to ask! @Sandstein: This is referring to this AfD; would you mind? Cheers, --Jack Frost (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sory, I don't undelete articles. Sandstein 23:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. I love love your help but it may appear I don't get a second chance with this deletion? I will upload again in the new year with the new second sources. Not quite sure what i did wrong in the first place but thought I had a few weeks to improve the article :-9.. that's a real shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikiandzaza2016 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

AmoLatina.com

Hello Jack, I created the AmoLatina.com page, which you recently declined. The think is, the page is very extensive in content, and the references are extensive. AmoLatina has been mentioned in so many locations on the web, but still I could not meet the threshhold. I honestly do not know how to meet this threshhold, but still believe the company has garnered sufficient international recognition to be featured on Wikipedia. Any help to resolve this? Vani Ongaya (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Vani Ongaya: Regarding your article Draft:AmoLatina.com; Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The coverage which I can find is either press releases (not reliable secondary sources) or glancing mentions (not significant coverage, and often not reliable secondary sources). Find coverage which meets the guidelines on the notability of websites and the general guideline for notability, and you are away. Regards, --Jack Frost (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Richard Gallo (performance artist)

thank you jack. it comes up on bing but not google. i will figure out.

the header at the top of my page suggests i clean up the works listed section. I can definitely do this but am not sure what wikipedia is looking for. Do you know what i need to do in that section? thank you scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiegallo (talk • contribs) 16:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Done, tag has been removed. Lacypaperclip (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lacypaperclip: Love your work! --Jack Frost (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sol Kumin

Thanks for taking a look over the draft Sol Kumin page. Agreed that the current iteration does not have sufficient secondary sources.

I'll be redrafting in the next 24 hours with further sources specifically on Kumin.

rotherwiki 14:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispaston (talk • contribs)

Hi Jack. As above, I have amended the article with the addition of further information and sources. I have ensured that the new sources are of higher significance including pieces on BusinessInsider.com and Reuters.com, in addition to profiles/interviews on respected racehorse publications. Please could you take another look at the article? Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispaston (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Chrispaston: Hi Chris, the sticking point still seems to be significant coverage; as whilst there are quite a number of articles the coverage of Sol himself is glancing mentions, not the sort of in-depth coverage I'd be looking for... However, I'm not comfortable to call it as a straight decline either, which is why I've left it in the queue for another reviewer to look at (and they may well disagree with me!). Sorry I can't be more help. --Jack Frost (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Frost: Thanks again for the explanation and feedback Jack. I was cautious this time with the re-submission and paid close attention to notability guidelines. My hope was that there was enough significant coverage focused specifically on Kumin. To my mind, references 1, 4, 5, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22 and 24 are all arguably coverage directly of Sol, with others such as 20 is split between both him and Folger Hill. Regardless, I understand your reasoning for leaving it in the queue for another reviewer to look at. Again, I appreciate the feedback!

Richard Gallo (performance artist)

Hi Jack.

I cannot find online the page I created for the performance artist Richard Gallo. Do you know what has happened to it?

thank you Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiegallo (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Richiegallo: Try here: Richard Gallo (performance artist). --Jack Frost (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

a man is a man,

Jack, you might not know the difference between a man and a woman, however you should know that edits that do not reflect your particular viewpoint do not constitute vandalism, terrorism, or whatever you want to call it. I suggest you recuse yourself as a wikipedia moderator as your are highly biased in regards to certain topics. Thank you, Jack ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.248.148 (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. Please see the policy on gender identity within articles. Regards, --Jack Frost (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A man is a man Jack, this is correct. Wikipedia serves knowledge in the web and does not redefine the laws of biology. Please read a book on human sexual parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.248.148 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

If I thought it would do the slightest bit of good, I'd suggest you have a look at a book which explains the difference between gender and sex (particularly as there are several good ones out there with lots of pictures and words contained to one or two syllables). However, I don't believe it would be of any use as I suspect you have not yet discovered that one is meant to read books, not eat them... --Jack Frost (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for your help with the Sol Kumin draft page despite us not being able to come to agreement on the subject matters' notability! rotherwiki 13:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

15:24:37, 11 December 2017 review of submission by 50.248.247.49

50.248.247.49 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Kenco Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Jack Frost,

I am not requesting a re-review, just asking for more information on how I can improve the article. In particular, I was curious where I should focus:

- Do I have too few references to show notability? - Do I need more diverse references to show notability? - Do I have certain references that are problematic?

Or is it some other issue? Just trying to understand how to improve this.

Thank you!!

Rachael

Your mistakes on Czechs page

Yes, indeed you have made a big mistake no the czechs page. I have to take issue with your unsubstantiated assumption that mine breaks the neutral point of view simply due to another unsubstantiated claim. Your bias is already evident and I wonder why you didn't say where it was violated before taking actions.Alamatp2 (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alamatp2: It has been explained to you multiple times, by multiple editors, that your changes to the article Czechs, amongst others, do not adhere to our policies around neutral point of view. Stop arguing with everyone who tells you this, and making a general pain of yourself, and instead focus on making improvements to articles which are both neutral and sourced. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

No it has not been explained. READ THE COMMENTS I HAVE MADE.

1. I have requeseted information about POV WHICH WAS NOT SUPPLIED by the POV Claimant. LAST WARNING.

2. You have FAILED TO READ MY COMMENTARY. LAST WARNING ON THAT. Alamatp2 (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

No loss --Jack Frost (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

MY PHOTOS

Hey there Jack Frost

Is there no communication between Wiki moderators or the wiki photo police or whatever you think your function is?

I am getting bombarded by Wiki monitors who think they know better then I do owns and has the rights to use the photos I am uploading on mWikipedia page.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??

Getting tired of this BS !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanantonioFIRE (talk • contribs) 07:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@SanantonioFIRE: I posted a note on your talk page welcoming you to Wikipedia, and which has a few links to the Wikipedia policies on images; given this appears to have been an issue for you. However, since you're here I'll use the opportunity to give you some advice directly, since it appears you are unable to read and comprehend our policies all on your lonesome. The reason we are "harassing" you, is because our project has some very stringent requirements around images to ensure that we only use images which are free to use and not under copyright. As I'm sure you can understand as a photographer, you'd be a mite upset if I pinched all of your photos and uploaded them on Wikipedia, and said "but they're my photos" and Wikipedia just took my word for it. So, in order to protect the rights of photographers and artists; we have these policies in place. So essentially your options really boil down to: 1) Read and comply with our policies and guidelines on images and copyright licensing, then upload your images in compliance with these (as we'd love to have them). 2) Continue to ignore our policies and guidelines, and whinge and stomp your feet as a petulant child does when they are pointed out to you. 3) Go elsewhere. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Your response

Hey there Jack Frost

We are not using ANY photos from Wikipedia ... NONE

We are ONLY using photos that we upload to Wikipedia. We OWN (actually took them ourselves) any and all photos we are uploading and using on our page.

Can you explain what is wrong with this?

I am getting all sorts of messages from the Wikipedia photo monitors telling us we have no rights to use these photos. WHO are these people to tell us we have no rights to the photos we took and are TRYING TO HELP BY CONTRIBUTE some good information to Wikipedia??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanantonioFIRE (talk • contribs) 07:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What good information are you contributing to Wikipedia, exactly? So far, you have only added photos to your user page, not to any articles. In fact, you have made no contributions to any articles at all. How are you hoping to contribute to the encyclopaedia as a whole? By the way, I have contributed thousands of photos to Wikipedia, and none are watermarked. They are used in many articles and are for the benefit of Wikipedia, not me. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 08:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@SanantonioFIRE: I don't doubt that you took the photos yourself, however as soon as you upload an image, any image, to anywhere on Wikipedia, it must meet our policies and guidelines on images and copyright. It isn't sufficient to say "I took them, they're mine": The licensing etc. must be completely A-OK to what we want it or we will keep telling you that it isn't, will delete your images and may even block you from participating. It isn't because we're harassing you, it's because as an encyclopaedia we feel it's important to protect everyone's copyright, every time. So once again, have a read of the stuff I posted on your talk page and ensure the licensing of the images meets our requirements, and we can all crack on with building an encyclopaedia. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

We are out of here

−

− Due to the smart ass remark by "talk page stalker" we are out of here!

− F*** HIM!!

− We have not had a chance to add content and articles yet.

−

− Good luck

SanantonioFIRE posted the above, sans asterisks, and was (quite rightly) promptly reverted by Oshwah --Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@SanantonioFIRE: With all due respect, I refer you to the sound advice contained within the essay on high maintenance users: "don't let the door hit you on the backside on the way out." --Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing Information on Central Bank of Kenya

Hi,

We have submitted the legal paperwork (per your requirements) to prove that we, the Central Bank of Kenya, are the copyright owners of the material used on the Central Bank of Kenya Wikipedia page. Yet we keep getting our material deleted for copyright violation. Can you please resolve this issue once and for all!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.248.21.18 (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright message

Thank you for posting a message on my talk page about breach of copyright. And for welcoming me to WP, after just 10,000 edits. The material you identified does indeed look similar to the linked magazine, but although I moved and edited some of it yesterday, most of the offending material appears to have been added to the page way back in December 2015 (cited since April 2016). By someone else. I will however endeavour to put things right, Seasons' greetings. And best wishes for 2017 ;) MapReader (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC) MapReader (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@MapReader: Apologies, missed the earlier introduction of the copied & pasted text, and I think I read your edit count as 10... Anyways, thanks for your work copyediting that article into some form of acceptable state, and likewise all the best to you and yours for the holiday season and New Year! --Jack Frost (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Columbus Eagles FC

Hi Jack! Thanks for taking the time to review Columbus Eagles FC, the drafted wiki page. I've submitted it a few times and each time it has been refused for lacking enough resources. I've provided more than a half-dozen reliable, independent secondary sources (and I think I've attributed them properly). Would you mind letting me know what I should do better to get this page approved? Should I write more information?

Thanks! Grantburkhardt (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Grantburkhardt: Apologies for the delay, I completely missed your message. The sources you have provided are indeed mostly reliable, independent and secondary; which is great. However what is lacking is the depth of coverage; what's there, I'd classify as routine coverage, whereas what we're looking for is significant coverage (i.e. it addresses Columbus Eagles "directly and in detail", not just coverage of wins & losses or team makeup etc.). Have a great and restful holiday season, and please feel free to pose any further questions you might have and I will endeavour to answer with a bit more timeliness! Cheers, --Jack Frost (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Submission at Articles for creation

Dear Jack Frost , thank you very much for your friendly message! Could you please clarify what I should improve in order to get the article approved? I would be very grateful for some help. Thanks and happy holidays! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPatrol (talk • contribs) 17:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@ElPatrol: Happy holidays to you too! Essentially, to be included in Wikipedia, we need things to be both notable and verifiable; what we are looking for is "...significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...". So if you can provide references which meet the definition of reliable secondary sources, and which cover Tito Lee "directly and in detail", then we're sailing. It might also be worth seeing whether any of the sources support his meeting the notability guidelines for creative professionals or musicians and DJs also... It can be confusing, so please don't hesitate to ask either here or at the teahouse if you have any other questions. Cheers, --Jack Frost (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Frost: Hei Jack Frost! Thank you for your answer. Indeed, it is a little bit confusing but I added a lot of independent sources and resubmitted the article for review. Could you please take a look at it? Thank you very much for your help!

Dear Jack Frost,

Seasons Greetings, It seems IP 107.77.213.165 received a warning that it had moved and/or posted content on another's or a different page. I have owned this IP since 2016 but have not used it to post to Wiki at all, barring me doing this accidentally! Posts emanating from it may be from the former owner. Thank you for your time, and I apologize for any content being moved around. Liveade (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes patrol

Hi Jack,

I noticed you're doing some of pending changes patrols and have recently accepted a number of unsourced edits to Days of the year articles. There was a recent change to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Style that removed the exemption from WP:V. Additions to these articles now require direct citations. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Ah, I'd been checking for sources separately and hadn't realised they needed direct sourcing. I'll start either requiring the sources directly or adding them myself. Thanks for letting me know! --Jack Frost (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Keep up the great work on pending changes! Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Sir John Monash Centre

Good afternoon, Jack. I've had a look at the above, following a request from the editor on the AfC Helpdesk. I absolutely agree that the sources as they stood didn't support Notability independent of the Villers–Bretonneux Australian National Memorial. However, I've added about a dozen, and I think they might do now. It's a A$100 million project and also has some Notability due to the centenary opening this April. I didn't want to Accept without giving you an opportunity to express a view, so if you had a chance to take a look, I'd very much appreciate it. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC);

Appreciated. You're absolutely right it's a bit of a leap of faith, in that it hasn't even opened yet, but I'm pretty confident it will generate further coverage from suitable RS when it does. It certainly needs expansion, and the drafting editor's indicated they are up for this. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries! That was my point, I could umm and ahh and wait for one final, definitive source to come along to make me completely satisfied, or I could accept that it's maybe a bit borderline and go with the flow a little... I know which is far more encouraging to a new contributor. Thank you for your consideration in notifying me, and have a happy, safe and prosperous New Year! --Jack Frost (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

And to you to. From my interactions with the editor who wrote the first draft, I'm pretty confident you won't regret it. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Jason Smith (Youtuber)

Hi, you said that you could help me with my article, right? -Jason Smith (YouTuber) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason CoolDude Smith (talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You said to make one article. Okay, I will. I will just stick to one account only and create only one page. Can you please help me with the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason CoolDude Smith (talk • contribs) 13:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jason CoolDude Smith: Hi Jason, Yes I would be happy to help you out!

Firstly, Welcome to Wikipedia, although you've had a bit of a rocky start, it's a pleasure to meet you!

Secondly, I will say that although I will do my very best to help you with your article, it will take a few days to work on together to get it up to scratch, and even then it may not meet the requirements for articles to be included on Wikipedia...

Finally, it will be a lot easier if you are happy to read a few of the rules and guidelines which Wikipedia has. If you'd still like some help, just let me know! Cheers, --Jack Frost (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Huh, whaddaya know. You try to be nice and not bite the newcomers... --Jack Frost (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Jack Frost. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Charles Maximilien de Lalaing, Jack Frost.

Unfortunately Domdeparis has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

hi sorry to unreiview this but the page has quite a lot of problems, spelling, grammar unsourced information, redlinks that make no sense

To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.

Domdeparis (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: You're more than entitled to do so, as I've only been reviewing for about 12 hours, and am always open to feedback. However, based on my reading of the NPR instructions, and following the flowchart through start-to-finish; the article (whilst in a somewhat suboptimal state) did not meet any of the fail points, and given it had been created by an experienced editor (although one with some question marks) I felt the way forward was to mark the article as reviewed. I debated tagging the article, however elected to leave it untagged and to come back to it later to see if progress had been made. If so, great. If not, then I could have tagged it appropriately, or copyedited it myself. If there was a criteria that I missed, or any other suggestion, I'd be glad to hear it. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jack new pages reviewing involves a very sharp learning curve and having articles unreviewed with explanations why is an integral part of this process. Don't take it personnally it's just a good way of letting another reviewer know what the problems are that they may have missed.

A reviewed page that has no tags on it is one that the reviewer considers has no major problems and not simply one that should be deleted and will be indexed by Google and to be honest this article is not of a sufficiently good standard to go through with no tags on it but IMHO it does not meet deletion criteria. What you have to do when you review a page that passes the main concerns of attack pages copyvio hoaxes and COI, is to read carefully and especially look at the sources and see if they are reliable sources and support the information in the article as per New_pages_patrol#Sourcing_issues. This page only has 2 and 1 is in French which is fine but if you are not a French reader it is not easy to see what is supported or not by this source. I'm lucky enough to be fluent in French so I was able to check out the source and I could see that very little in the article was supported by these sources. If you can't understand a source because it's in a language that you do not understand it's better to leave the article unreviewed for someone else to look at.

The article creator is not fluent in English and has been pulled up for this many times and when you read this article it is clear that there is some copy editing to be done. If you don't have the time to correct it yourself it should be tagged for copy edit; A couple of exemples are "He married to Christine du Tour van Bellinchave " and "De Lalaing was ambassador in Zwitserland" "He served in the United-Kingdom between 1904-1917, during the First World war." (is the editor suggesting that the First World War started in 1904 and ended in 1917 or is he just reminding us that the First World War took place during this period, whatever the case it needs correcting). The redlinks are curious to say the least, it is not normal practice to use Regnal number after someone's name unless they are a monarch emperor or regent. This editor is suggesting with his redlinks that the page Jacques III de Lalaing is one that should be created this is a very odd title for a page for a count. Anyway that's a few pointers I hope that will help you with the future new pages reviewing. Take the time to look at the edit history as well as the talk page, on this edit history one can see that the page was moved by another user (an admin BTW) with a comment "Editor always inventing names not used outside Wikipedia" he then made another edit with this comment "Some cleanup, more needed". As I said before new pages reviewing is an important task because we are deciding if a page can be indexed to search engins such Google or not. Domdeparis (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm John from Idegon. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Bangladesh Railway Fan Club Association, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

John from Idegon (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Rotherham

The sources cited are within the Jay report, that does explain that British Asian girls were targeted as they had been previously in 2013. They need to be reflected in the article as consistently in the media they are ignored. The article shouldn’t also shun them as well as their communities. See my post on the talk page, my edit should stand. Americatcp (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Americatcp: I have replied on the article's talk page. Regards, --Jack Frost (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of the page

Hi Jack, the page I put up is with regard to an indian actress. Googling her name gives quite a bit of detail on her. The article also has some references to work she has done recently, please take a look :)

Regards, Nishant.

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Thank You
		Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI advice

Welcome to the wretched hive of scum and villainy known as ANI!

Two bits of advice:

When closing sections, keep the headings outside the box. This allows OneClickArchiver to include the atop section when archiving. (A few places, like Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, do include the headers in the archive tags.)
Nobody has ever helped their own cause in any way by participating at ANI. Even non-controversial edits have a way of getting people into trouble.

Best of luck! power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Whoops! Thanks for the advice and the welcome, I assume the first drink at the bar is on you? It was more noting a few finalised items that could be mopped up on the way through than anything else. Believe me, I have absolutely no intention of making a habit of hanging around the dramaboards for exactly the reason you've pointed out! --Jack Frost (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Jack Frost, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:CBAN for My Royal Young. Iggy (Swan) 00:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Mojo WorKings (Draft)

Hello Jack Frost, I "have been fighting" with creation Mojo WorKings Wiki page in English, but till now it was refused. My Hungarian helper Ogodej, who much better familier with Wikipedia questions, but I want to finish this page, if possible. I created already this page in Hungarian (because this blues band is a famous Hungarian one), but they play frequently in different European countries, so they need this site in English for international fans. Last time you wrote to Ogodej: "Does not appear to meet the notability criteria for bands either". Since I doesn't know very well Wiki procedures, but know very well Mojo WorKings band, pls. write me (with simple words - I'm not native, you know), how can I correct text of "Mojo draft". Thx. for your help in advance. Karcsúbey (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

rediting artist Joshua Abelows wiki

Hi Jack! Thank you for the advice revising my first wiki page, on the artist Joshua Abelow. I have made some edits to the page, and was wondering if you could take a look and let me know if it is looking any closer to being ready for pub. Thank you! JesseRobertSullivan (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JesseRobertSullivan (talk • contribs) 18:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

About Oméga-Samson Wiki

I thank you for the heads up and the time you took to read the article I submit. I read often on this platform some articles talking about someone; and I wonder: is at an autobiography? because if it is that will be cool. The people who lived a certain life talking about it the way it is with their words.That was my goal. I thought that I am a right human being who can talk about my life.

04:39:51, 17 March 2018 review of submission by RamonaTBajema

RamonaTBajema (talk · contribs)
- Draft:William Moses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have rewritten the article about Bill Moses and cited numerous legitimate secondary sources as recommended when it was first declined. There are many figures noted on Wikipedia with similar backgrounds to Moses' citing similar sources. Please reconsider including this article for Wikipedia. Moses' business achievements and contributions to the beverage sector are varied and notable. Thank you.

RamonaTBajema (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

13:21:40, 29 March 2018 review of submission by User:Lizettelouw

Thoughtfortheday (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Feral - Searching for Enchantment on the Frontiers of Rewilding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There was already an article about Feral on Wikipedia (something the reviewers apparently missed when declining Lizettelouw's submission). I created the article in question.

Following the rejection of her draft, I suggested that Lizettelouw incorporate some of her material in the existing article, which she has done. I have no doubts about the notability of this prize-winning book, but I didn't find writing an article about it easy, so I can see why someone fairly new to Wikipedia had problems with it. Lizettelouw did provide links to a number of reviews so I don't think the problem was that she did not use independent sources, something she was criticised for. The fact that the reviews for the book were very good does not mean that they were promotional material. I think the weaknesses of the draft were rather that it needed a proper lede, was not so good as a general introduction to the subject etc.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Jack Frost, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

TicketFire Submission

Tommy Parizek (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC) Hi, Jack. I am trying to create a page for my company TicketFire. In my previous attempts I have been told that my references are not qualified and that my copy reads like an advertisement.

I need help as to how to remedy these errors because I have designed my copy based on all our other competitors (Stubhub, tick pick, seatgeek, etc.) and I have kept things extremely neutral simply stating what our company does. Additionally, I have included links from websites such as Forbes, TechCrunch, PRnewswire, etc. that I would consider to be very qualified and un biased.

Can you please help?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy Parizek (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

bio

create my bio Khandekarsh (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Jack Frost, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Jack Frost, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Jack Frost, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Categorization at AfD

Does this edit mean that this discussion won’t show up any longer at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts? (I’m not familiar with the behind-the-scenes workings at AfD.) — Gorthian (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... I suspect it would have, the script must have removed the listing at the Disambiguation Wikiproject. I have recategorised it as a Disambiguation as well, and I'll keep an eye out for the same thing in the future. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, Jack Frost (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Page deletion

Hi Jack, What ever tags are been placed by mistake has been taken off please check and review the page if any thing else is required kindly let us know thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viralhotline (talk • contribs) 08:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment from a now-blocked spammer... -Jack Frost (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio

When you apply a {{db-copyvio}} tag, always give the full URL so that a link to the duplication detector is created. See User talk:Kaanakyz2 for a case where you did not do it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@RHaworth: Ah, I didn't realise this. Full URL as in including the HTTP://...?? --Jack Frost (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ilia Hashemi

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --Mrloopitus (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Why should this article be deleted? Because it is an Iranian? Mrloopitus (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC) last pesian news: http://www.hamkhone.ir/member/132008/blog/view/290876/ https://evand.com/events/x25Mrloopitus (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

search "Ilia Hashemi Annual Conference" to google for top last news of Ilia Hashemi Annual ConferenceMrloopitus (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mrloopitus: Unfortunately, Ilia Hashemi does not appear to meet the specific criteria people need to meet to be considered notable enough to include in this Encyclopaedia. If you are able to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of Mr Hashemi, then this may be further evidence of his notability. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, -Jack Frost (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

She is a prominent man. Many pages of Wikipedia have linked him. Please remove the removal request until you collect the stuff.Mrloopitus (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Page - Aayush Sharma

Hi, This is regarding the page titled, Aayush Sharma which was deleted under Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Too soon etc. I would need your help to restore this page as I feel there are enough relevant links to show that he's an actor & assistant director based in Mumbai, India.

Link to his debut films trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCC6izqds04&ab_channel=SalmanKhanFilms Link to his verified twitter account - https://twitter.com/aaysharma Press artciles about his debut as an actor - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/aayush-sharma-my-goal-is-to-prove-i-deserve-to-be-an-actor/articleshow/65272064.cms

Please help me here on how can we restore the page as clearly it seems like a mistake. Thanks in advance AayushSharmaOfficial (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Jack Frost, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js^(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js^(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
User:Primefac/revdel.js^(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js^(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
User:Evad37/rater.js^(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Jack Frost, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018^[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Jack Frost,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jack Frost. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Jack Frost,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

Batman v Superman revision

Hi Jack Frost,

Yesterday I made updates to my edit request, but since my edits are still showing above your initial comments, and I'm new to Wikipedia, I thought I would let you know here, just in case it helps, that I did try to revise my edit request based on your instructions. My apologies also if this message doesn't adhere to the correct format.

If I can be of further help let me know.

Thank you!

Usagienthusiast (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Usagienthusiast: Apologies for the delay, however it looks as if your query has been answered. Should you have any further queries or requests for help, please don't hesitate to ask! Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello merry christmas

hi jack frost (must Be cold lol ) yes ive realize i need help on my wiki been trying to do this since march im having a hard time id can really use some help i am featured on the new method album also have songs with MAX B and frenchie out and more ...i see that you send my page to deletion i really dont know how this works but id really really appreciate if you can lead me in the right direction thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallg (talk • contribs) 23:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mallg: Hi! Wikipedia has a number of policies on what articles are suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. In the first instance, articles such as the one you created need to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, through providing citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Wikipedia also has a guideline on autobiographies, which are articles about yourself. This is considered a form of conflict of interest. Please have a read of these policies, and if you have any further questions, please let me know. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Dove Cameron

Dear Editor:

I do not know of Dove Cameron and never attempted to edit a page about her. If you believe this has happened, then it is surely a hack. Please take appropriate steps. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.30.127 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@100.38.30.127: Hi! It appears that this was in reference to an edit and subsequent warning from back in 2017. Given you are editing from an IP address, I suspect at that time another person was using that address. Given you did not make the edits, please consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia! --Jack Frost (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hindi translation?

Hi, where was the original in Hindi from which you think Nana Farari was translated? I can't find it. Experience suggests to me that it is just someone who has a poor grasp of English ... and is about to be topic banned because they also have a poor grasp of policies. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: Hi Sitush, I couldn't make hide nor hair of whether it was a very poor translation of a text, or very poor grasp of English, and was more aiming for another opinion (possibly erroneously...). I think next time I'll just go with my gut and whack it on face value. Thanks for your time dealing with it anyway! --Jack Frost (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem, except I am unsure how to deal with the template given that it connects to a maintenance list entry. The template and the entry are now not needed. - Sitush (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm 99.9% sure it auto-populates; no template = no maintenance list entry. I've removed the template and it appears to have disappeared from the list... Hopefully I haven't broken something! --Jack Frost (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you have I will deny ever having been here to raise the issue :) - Sitush (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Craig Mackey Article Edits

Hi Jack,

I've been trying to edit what Craig Mackey did during the 22 March 2017 terror attack in Westminster, London UK where he locked himself in his car and did not confront the terrorist. This is a factual description of the events that took place. Other law enforcement and former soldiers ran towards to the attacker - Guardian Link

I'm still new here, so I'm wondering why this edit has not been accepted.

Thanks! Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danloeb (talk • contribs) 03:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Jack Frost,

News

The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
{{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for deleting the article "Heidegger Returns to Ontology" very quickly. This was an April Fool's Day prank, and that it got deleted quickly shows that Wikipedia, along with Conservapedia, might be nicknamed "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Vorbee (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Jack Frost,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

[subject-1] The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.

[nontrivial-2] "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.

[independent-3] Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book.

[bestseller-4] A book's inclusion in a reliable bestseller list is non-trivial treatment if the list is notable or the list is published by a notable media outlet and the list is republished or covered by other reliable sources. Bestseller lists in retailer or e-commerce sources like Amazon or self-published sources like personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, wikis, and similar media are not considered reliable. Social media review sites like Goodreads and LibraryThing do not qualify for this criterion.

[selfpromotion-5] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

[school-6] This includes both primary and secondary schools.

[textbooks-7] This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]