User talk:Wiae/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wiae. 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.

Thank you for your valued opinion. my edit contribution on West Bengal Board of Primary Education was rightly removed, The said works are not intentionally or deliberatly at all but due to lack of experience in wiki editing. and this was a public web site opareted by the govt. of west bengal which should be used by any encyclopedia. however I can add more info if your team permit me, that should be obviously without violating copyright policy. thank you. keep helping Pinakpani (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Pinakpani (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pinakpani: Hi, thanks for checking in here. If you look at the bottom of http://www.wbbpe.org/his.aspx, which is the source from which the material was copied, you'll see "© Copyright WBBPE 2011. All rights reserved." This means that the text is protected by copyright, and so we can't copy and paste the text from that site into Wikipedia. However, what you can do is use the facts explained on that site and summarize them in your own words. This is also known as paraphrasing. If you're unfamiliar with paraphrasing best practices, check out the resources at http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase.html and http://www.uc.utoronto.ca/paraphrase.

Make sure you also cite the source that you're using when you paraphrase. If you have any other questions, you're welcome to ask here or to inquire at the Teahouse, a friendly place to get help from experienced editors. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 12:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

All right sir. thanx for help and suggestion. Pinakpani (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Mz7. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Jindal School of International Affairs, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Mz7 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This was an automated message, and I think it can be safely ignored. Jindal School of International Affairs was apparently autopatrolled, but since there is new content now created by another user, I want to see it put through WP:NPP again. Also, I have revision-deleted the diffs you requested. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks for catching that. I agree that it would be a good idea to have another set of eyes on the article. And thanks for the revision-deletion! /wiae /tlk 22:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

At the ORCP, you mentioned in the closing statement that your chances fall firmly within the 'maybe' range. How is that? All except one person rated you 8 out of 10. Especially experienced editors like Kudpung have noted your worth. Why would you wish to hold off your Rfa? Might I suggest that you should go ahead and give it a try? If I can be of assistance in anything (including any guidance that you may require for the Rfa), please do tell. Thanks. Lourdes 17:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lourdes: I haven't forgotten about this message! I am giving it some thought and will try to follow up in greater detail tomorrow, perhaps by email. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. Lourdes 00:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You might consider contacting via e-mail Admins who are known to act on these. Posting them may precipitate the Streisand effect. Just sayin ... Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen, I see your point re. Streisand (and the giant {{copyvio-revdel}} template is ugly at the top of an article too), but I was under the impression that this concern applied only to the other RD-types, given the "under other circumstances" language at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#How to request Revision Deletion. Perhaps this is a discussion better suited for a larger forum. I don't know if Template talk:Copyvio-revdel is well-trafficked; maybe Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion? Thanks, /wiae /tlk 10:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It was not a criticism. I have had lots of success using admins to cure the disease. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen: It's a fair point nonetheless! Next time I run into a copyright issue on a highly visible page, I'll try firing a message to Diannaa or another of the active copyright admins. Thanks for the idea, /wiae /tlk 11:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there -- I appreciate your letting me know about your deletion proposal of the page Ellen Cobb. It makes sense. I had already seen the notability guidelines for bios, but I'm still getting used to all the rules/considerations involved. I'll work on doing better next time! ;) Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave: Another editor had proposed the article for deletion, but they didn't notify you, so I just left the notification on your talk page to keep you in the loop. Unfortunately I'm not up to speed on the athlete inclusion criteria as applied to judo competitors in particular, so I'm not sure I can provide much guidance on this article. It hasn't been "patrolled" yet by an experienced reviewer, so we will wait to see what they think. In the meantime, if there is any coverage of Cobb in newspapers back in the 70s, that would help the article stand a better chance of sticking around. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 19:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wiae,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 807 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Serobinson01 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Connections-based Learning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi WIAE, I appreciate the tips that you gave me long ago about the page I created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Connections-based_Learning I have tried to put them into place. Let me know if this works. Serobinson01 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Serobinson01, I hope you don't mind that I moved your post from my old talk page to this current one. At a glance, the draft looks much better than previously. I will probably let another reviewer do the reviewing honours this time, since I'm not too involved with Articles for Creation these days, but if I get some time in the next few days I may have a closer look myself. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 16:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serobinson01 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear,

We here at the Habesha Union are limited in resources to fix this matter at this time. But we have entered all of the information we have on the topic. We would like your help and the help of others to put this information that we have provided into the strict structure Wikipedia wants the information to be organized in. Thank You for the feedback you gave us earlier.

-- Sincerely, the Habesha Union Habesha Union (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks to be the usual combination of organizational advocacy, copyright concerns, and unsourced content. Since the user is now blocked, this is probably not much more to be done than to link to the appropriate policies: conflicts of interest, identifying reliable sources, and copyright on Wikipedia. /wiae /tlk 10:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess you must be getting as fed up with it as I am ;) I just removed THREE people this week from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants who can't read English. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: There has been an influx lately, hasn't there? The instructions on that page seem pretty clear to me, but...

At any rate, full-protecting the page seems like a good idea in the short term, and a useful intermediate step on the journey to establishing a more structured vetting process for AfC. (I'm assuming the end goal is a WP:PERM-style application process, similar to how WP:NPR does it? I've been out of the loop lately.) /wiae /tlk 13:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Seconding the idea of full-protection and a PERM-like process -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There's one guy who has had a dozen submissions rejected right up until yesterday. He is now complaining on my talk page that I removed him from the reviewer list! Yes, I think it's time to tighten up the rules again. Best of course would be to merge NPP and AfC together. Let's see first what the results of the upcoming ACTRIAL will bring. Should be interesting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just chasing up old RfA polls and came across this one, which was universally positive. I particularly like your interest in tracking copyright violations, and being able to talk sensibly about admin issues, as the above thread shows. Shall we chat? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, sounds good. I'm happy to send you an email later tonight (4 hours-ish) with some thoughts. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 18:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, not a problem. I'll have a look when you're ready. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I just sent something your way. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 22:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I've have read it and sent a response. There are a couple of things I think you need to do before I can consider a RfA nomination, but they shouldn't take long so I think it's a question of "when", not "if". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wiae, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wiae,

Thanks for taking the time to be a wiki editor. Apparently the additions I made yesterday to Wiki were not correct. As the administrator and one of the owners of the material from the website I cited, I do have full copyright privileges to everything I added. The facilitation blog is a free, well respected blog with the sole purpose of providing information about running better meetings. The 99% of the posts are written by my husband (I would not quote from guest posts), who is a respected expert in the field of facilitation, and a published author with the CRC Press. Also, for each wiki edit I made, I made sure to add a link back to wiki from the original post. (I have removed these until this situation is cleared up.). I did cite each addition... however, I apologize, I did not add quote marks. Since my husband is the author, and I have his permission to use the material, I did not paraphrase. Obviously I do not want to be blocked from editing. Please let me know what next steps I can take. I appreciate your time. Lorijometz (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lorijometz: Hi, and thanks for dropping by to ask here. I am not an administrator and I don't have the power to block anyone from editing; I'm just another editor like yourself. I've read through your post here and I see three issues worth identifying. I don't think they're insurmountable, but you should keep them in mind on Wikipedia.

• Copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright pretty seriously, and we generally don't host any material that's protected by copyright unless we have permission (a license from the copyright-holder). I believe you when you say that you run the mgrush website, but again we have to be careful here. Anyone could pretend they own a website, after all, and indeed this sort of thing has actually happened on Wikipedia before. That's why we have a designated plan in place for copyright-holders (it sounds like your husband would be the copyright-holder if they actually wrote the text) to license the text for use on Wikipedia. You can read about it at WP:DONATETEXT. A caveat, however: the licensing that Wikipedia requires would mean that anyone would be able to quote from your posts on mgrush and use or remix the text on their own website for basically any purpose, and maybe even for a purpose you don't really like. There's also a larger issue, which I'll address in my next bullet:
• Reliable sources. Wikipedia has this notion of "reliable sources": generally we only want to rely on "reliable sources" for content in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia basically defines a "reliable source" as a source with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking—think a reputed newspaper or a book from a well-known publisher, etc. Blogs are very rarely reliable sources, because anyone can write a blog and they don't typically have the editorial rigor of, say, The New York Times. Now, there is a carve-out for blogs written by "experts". If someone is an established expert on a subject whose work has been published by reliable third-party sources, their blog could be used to confirm basic facts in an article. But still we very much prefer reliable, third-party sources to reference information in Wikipedia articles. (There is another reason why we would prefer this, which I'll address in bullet point 3.) For this reason, I would be wary of relying on the mgrush blog too much. My opinion is that it would be a lot of work to license the text on the blog for use on Wikipedia, only to have it limited by the reliable sources rule. I usually recommend that editors instead paraphrase content, writing it in their own words. It retains the essential meaning of the original text but avoids any copyright issues.
• Advocacy. Since you're involved with mgrush, posting links to the website's content on Wikipedia can look like you are trying to promote the site, or drive traffic to it. Wikipedia tries to abide by a strict neutral point of view policy; we all want to make sure that the encyclopedia's content is neutral and unbiased and not giving a particular website or cause or idea more weight than it is due. When someone who is associated with a website starts adding links to that website throughout Wikipedia, it looks like they are advocating for that website, and it raises the spectre of a conflict of interest, because it can be very hard for someone to write neutrally about a topic they're closely associated with. Conflict-of-interest editing is discouraged on Wikipedia for that reason.

It seems like you are very interested in some of the topics you've been contributing to on Wikipedia. I'm just one editor who can't speak for the Wikipedia community, but if I could, I think I would say that we would all like to have you contribute great content to the encyclopedia. I think the easiest way to do that is to summarize what reliable published sources written by third parties have said on the topics you'd like to write about.

I hope this clarifies some of the issues around the material you'd added to the articles in question. I see you've also posted an inquiry on Diannaa's user talk page, and I'm sure she will have more thoughts on the matter. Let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 12:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Wasn't a hard choice to support :) /wiae /tlk 19:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wiae,

Thank you for reviewing the page I created. I do appreciate your help! I was asked by the non-profit to create the page and they supplied the content to be posted. They used the same description that they have posted on their website. As they are who provided the text, I do have permission to post the content. Clearly I missed a requirement. Could you please point me in the right direction for how to make this happen or do I need to re-write everything.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misty010 (talk • contribs) 17:25, July 25, 2017 (UTC)

@Misty010: Hi, and thanks for asking here. There are a few issues which I'll lay out for you below.

• Copyright. The vast majority of the text you can find online is protected by copyright, and Wikipedia's copyright policy means that we cannot just copy and paste that text into an article on Wikipedia. Rather, text should be paraphrased and written in one's own words, so as to retain the essential idea of the reference but without actually using the copyrighted text.

Having said that, there is an exception whereby a copyright-holder can license the text for use on Wikipedia. I believe you when you say that you have permission to post the content, but we have had people try to fool the system before (i.e., pretending they had the rights-holder's permission when in fact they did not), and so there is a standardized system you can use to demonstrate that permission. The process to do so is detailed at WP:DONATETEXT. However, it does take a little while, and given that it's just a paragraph or two of content, I would suggest that it'd be easier to simply rewrite the text in your own words. Further, the text on the Healthy Kids Running Series website is somewhat promotional and non-neutral (especially content written in the second person like "It doesn’t matter how fast or slow you run"), which doesn't make for good encyclopedic prose. Again, I think rewriting in a neutral, objective tone is generally the easiest course of action.

• The second issue is the conflict of interest. If you've been asked by an organization to write an article about them on Wikipedia, you would have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia because it is usually very difficult to write neutrally and objectively about a subject you have a personal connection to. The recommended way to make changes to a subject that intersects with a conflict of interest is to propose changes to that article on its talk page by means of the {{Request edit}} template. I will also note that Wikipedia's Terms of Use require you to disclose if you are being paid to write the article, so please do so if you have been paid to write or edit the article on Healthy Kids, or on any other subject on Wikipedia.

I hope this answers your questions. Let me know if you have any further queries. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 16:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again! And to clarify, I'm not being paid, just helping out to be nice as they didn't know how wikipedia worked and I wanted more experience using it so I could grow my skills. I can rewrite it as you suggest. It's really not that much text at all to look at. Thanks again! I'm enjoying learning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misty010 (talk • contribs) 17:53, July 25, 2017 (UTC)

@Misty010: Certainly. I will add that Healthy Kids Running Series does not yet have any references to reliable third-party sources like newspapers or books. Those are the kinds of sources a Wikipedia article should rely on as references. Otherwise the article could be at risk of deletion, or at the very least content that cannot be sourced to a reliable reference could be removed. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 11:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiae - I appreciate your edits and your efforts in general to ensure quality content on Wikipedia. I wrote the original content on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln site and the head of communications at the university has authorized use of the prescribed licenses for the source material.

I'm going to revert your changes so I can continue to work on the draft (the article is not available in public yet and won't be, obviously, until it passes muster). Again, thanks for the help here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcrisler (talk • contribs) 18:01, July 26, 2017 UTC (UTC)

@Bcrisler: Hi, now that the proper license is found at http://www.unl.edu/chancellor/bio, you will be able to use the text on that page in your draft. By the way, make sure you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules if you haven't already. Looks like you are doing the right thing by creating the page in the Draft space. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 17:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiae - I can't recover the work that was deleted yesterday. Do you have that power or do I need to redo it? Bcrisler (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bcrisler: The revisions of Draft:Ronnie D. Green were hidden this morning, which is standard practice when we come across text that's been copied from a source without attribution. I don't have the ability to unhide hidden revisions, but let me ping Diannaa, the administrator who hid the revisions in question, to get her thoughts. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 17:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Reviewed COI. I do have a conflict of interest, plain and simple. I work for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in the University Communication area. On the other hand I don't know who else is going to contribute accurate primary material on a chancellor at a university, other than the comms department at the university. And, a chancellor is -- to my standards, anyway -- a notable person and should be found in Wikipedia. I am a journalist by training, and will be careful to avoid any of the traps of COI. If this stays in draft until approved by Wikipedia admins, can I assume that we can take care of COI concerns in that way? I greatly value Wikipedia and entirely understand that its core mission involves providing an unbiased source for factual information. Also, assuming that my continued involvement on this is OK, is it possible to refrain from edits until I submit for review? I could build the article offline, but the MediaWiki markup is kind of its own thing, making editing in Draft mode here a far better alternative. Bcrisler (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bcrisler: If you're writing an article on a subject where you have a conflict of interest, the best place to do that is precisely where you're doing it—in the draft space. You are welcome to continue working on the draft; just press the "Submit your draft for review!" button when you're happy with it. That will trigger the review process (which could be a few weeks' wait, given the backlog right now). Since the draft is about a university chancellor, I imagine it would likely be accepted into the encyclopedia proper for meeting the relevant "notability" inclusion criteria. If/when the draft is accepted, at that point I would strongly suggest that you propose any future changes on the article's talk page by means of a {{Request edit}} template. That will flag your suggested changes so that a volunteer can assess them. But for now, it should be fine to draft the article where you are working on it.

As regards the conflict of interest, if you are being paid to write this article, then you must disclose that, per the Wikimedia Terms of Use. One easy way to do that is with the {{Connected contributor (paid)}} template on the draft's talk page. However, if you're not being paid to write it, then the disclosure you already made in this thread should be sufficient.

Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 18:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia. By mistake, I have used copied text in Sundeep Bhutoria's Wiki Page. Please remove the notice you have placed in the wiki page. It's a humble request to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsilax (talk • contribs) 18:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Iamsilax: The template will only remain on the article until an administrator has the chance to take a look at it and hide the historical revisions in question. Once that's done, the administrator will remove the template. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 19:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

But please don't delete the page. Humble request to you. By mistake, I have put copy - pasted text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsilax (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Iamsilax: That template at the top will not delete the page; it will merely hide some of the revisions of the article that contained the copyrighted material. See Help:Page history for more information on an article's revisions. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 19:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear sir, you have already removed the copied lines from the Wikipedia page. Please help to remove the notice from the page. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsilax (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Iamsilax: I am not an administrator, so I don't have the ability to hide the revisions in question and then remove the box from the top of the article. However, it has been flagged and an administrator will be along shortly to do so. Once they have finished, the box will no longer appear on the top of the article. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 12:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wiae

Thanks for your suggestion,but I dnt understand why you deleted. I am writting it myself taking it from my senios and own CPWD website. Please visit this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoop_Kumar_Mittal here also for describing the person, Department is being described. Why such biasing, and in doing so I am not violation any copyright norms. I must say your knowledge is limited.The website you are quoting that I have copied text from there is not true. .Also please make me understand why this line has been deleted.... As CPWD is government owned department it is responsible to all the construction works of Government of India being it inland or oversees. CPWD has versatile experience of construction works and it’s purview don’t limit to a particular field of construction...Also why this line has been deleted ...... Under the leadership of Abhai Sinha CPWD has recorded the highest workload of Rs.12,200 cr during 2016-17.... Please stop deleting the things out of your incomplete knowledge. Please visit following sites which were my refrence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Public_Works_Department,_India. http://cpwd.gov.in/AboutUS/HistoricalBackgrond.aspx. Please help me in completing the page, as it's a very good initiative. And the person I am writting for hold great post in India, and there is only such post.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish Kanodia (talk • contribs) 12:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Manish Kanodia: Hi, some of the material on Abhai Sinha was copied directly from http://www.nitjsr.ac.in/pnd/mou.php. If you visit that website, you will find that it reads "© 2017 WebTeam NIT Jamshedpur - All Rights Reserved" on the bottom of the page. That means the text is protected by copyright and we cannot include it in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's copyright policy for more information on that subject.

I also removed some of the detail about the CPWD because that information belongs in the article on the Central Public Works Department, India, not in an article about a person. It is okay to say that he works in the CPWD, and if he has done something in the CPWD that has been covered in reliable sources, then it would be suitable to include it in Abhai Sinha. However, we want to make sure that we stay on topic in the article about Abhai Sinha and not get sidetracked by discussions of things that are not actually about him.

I notice you say that you work in the department. This means you would have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest. It is very hard to write neutrally and objectively about a subject when you have a conflict of interest in that area, because close connections to something can often bring bias. Indeed, we are not here to promote the subject or puff them up; the main goal of Wikipedia should be to report neutrally and objectively on what reliable sources that are independent of the subject have said about it. For instance, you would like to add information about how the workload increased to 12,200 crore in 2016/17. However, if you look at the source (http://cpwd.gov.in/AboutUS/HistoricalBackgrond.aspx), it does not say that at all. Where does that piece of information come from? That's why we rely on reliable sources like newspapers and books when writing on Wikipedia. Otherwise, it can look like the article is trying to promote the subject.

My advice to you is to suggest changes to the article on its talk page by means of a {{Request edit}} template, which will allow other editors to see your request and then assess it for its neutrality. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask them here. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 12:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wiae please refer the last page in reference for the workload increased to 12,200 crore in 2016/17. http://wap.business-standard.com/article/government-press-release/cpwd-reminded-of-challenges-ahead-as-it-turns-163-shri-venkaiah-117071200752_1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish Kanodia (talk • contribs) 12:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Manish Kanodia: Ah, I see it in this other source. What you should do is add an inline citation for this kind of thing. It's a little reference that appears right after the sentence in question. This lets readers know that there is a source for the information they are reading, and also that they can click the link to read the actual reference to verify the fact if they wish. If you're not familiar with referencing on Wikipedia, there's a good tutorial at Referencing for beginners that I would recommend. Let me know if you have any other concerns. /wiae /tlk 13:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiae am enjoying discussing with you, also am still into learning phase. And I am seeing a page issue now as you have used COI tag. I have written all the things giving refrence to all the text used. A fact can never be biased. He is and engineer, an IES officer, a DG etc how can these facts can be biased and wrong. I have never met the person directly, and will never get a chance too. Adding such tag is atall not justified. I request you to remove that tag. Manish Kanodia (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Manish Kanodia: well seeing as you have disclosed that you work in the same department as the subject, you would indeed have a conflict of interest, and I think the tag is quite justified as a result. Having said that, we do have a conflict of interest noticeboard on Wikipedia that deals with these sorts of issues on a regular basis, and I would be more than happy to let them look at the issue if you want a second set of eyes on the article. /wiae /tlk 13:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So the page will always display page issue? What's the solution of that ? Pleas lemme know ? I am really working hard to keep this page live. I am not gonna derive any profit from it. But as India is growing country, and there are many colleges, producing engineers here. And many engineers opt such career, one must know about him, and his contributions.Creation of this page has been praised by many, as civil engineers in my country will get a chance to know about him. Manish Kanodia (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Manish Kanodia: I imagine the subject has a claim to "notability", which is what we call the threshold a subject must pass in order to have an article about themselves on Wikipedia. So on that basis I don't think the article will be deleted. The important thing is to rely on good-quality references: think newspapers and the like.

As for the tag, it can be removed once the article is cleaned up. I will have a look at improving the article in a little while and then remove the tag. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 15:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Manish Kanodia: I have updated the page. However, there does not seem to be very much information about the subject online. I know I mentioned above that the subject might have a claim to notability, but now I'm not quite so sure based on the dearth of coverage I was able to find after a web search. I would recommend finding more sources about Sinha, perhaps in newspapers. /wiae /tlk 15:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wiae: Thanks for giving so much of time to the page. You really did a lot. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish Kanodia (talk • contribs) 16:41, August 3, 2017 (UTC)

Hello I am Builder8360 I want let you know your edit from List of earthquakes in 1977 don't seem constructive, Earthquake by month appearing in all List of earthquake by year, Also thanks for fix date 2016 with 1977 and adding reflist A good day! Builder8360 (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Builder8360: At first I thought that since the tables were sortable, only one would be necessary. However, after having looked at some other "List of earthquakes in [year]" articles, it seems this is common practice, so I think you were correct to revert that edit. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 18:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wiae: Uh in earthquake by month I wanted add 1977 Tonga earthquake were was not created in Wikipedia, I can't added it in earthquakes by death toll because there was reported 1 dead and there should be more than 30, also thanks for listening, goodbye! --Builder8360 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wiae. In addition to the above page, there's also some useful chronological data on current activity at User:Diannaa/sandbox. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Looks useful; thank you! I'll keep an eye out for future instances of that IP-blanking activity too. /wiae /tlk 22:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

What I usually do is skim the new entries at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en at the start of my session looking for likely candidates. The articles he selects are typically but not exclusively in the financial services field, and he returns to the same articles repeatedly. Unfortunately he has access to several ranges, not all of which are suitable for range block. If you spot any likely IPs please let me (or another admin) know right away. The quicker we block the more likely he is to tire of vandalizing the site. Thanks for this and for all your hard work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your significant and growing contributions to Copypatrol. Kudos! S Philbrick(Talk) 19:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :) /wiae /tlk 04:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wiae, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

In a knockout event, it is not valid to enter the nationality of the qualifier for the next round, any more than it's valid to enter the name "William" if both participants happen to be called "William". This is pure extrapolation. How do we know both participants won't be disqualified? And how does it add any useful content to the article? This is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Please don't be swayed by IP snobbery, per WP:IPHUMAN. Policy trumps all. 125.238.77.24 (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

IP editor, you may or may not be right about the content dispute at Chess World Cup 2017. However, that was not the purpose of my warning. Thinking that your interpretation of policy is correct is not license to edit-war. On Wikipedia, we solve content disputes by taking discussion to the talk page, not by continually reverting others' contributions. You have removed the same content from Chess World Cup 2017 four times in the last day, which is a breach of the three-revert rule. There is a limited set of exceptions to the three-revert rule (detailed at WP:3RRNO), but this content dispute does not fall within the ambit of any of those exceptions. I could have sought administrative action on these grounds alone; however, as you appear to be a newcomer, I instead left you a message to inform you of our policies. Stop edit-warring and start discussing on Talk:Chess World Cup 2017. If you continue to edit war, I will seek administrative action. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 20:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wiae, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wiae, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Wiae! Last fall you helped a colleague of mine, Heatherer, with an edit request for a public relations firm. Being that you gave careful consideration during that process, I was wondering if you might have time to review a similar request at Talk:CGCN Group. Within the past month, I've been looking for editors to review updates I drafted for History and Partners sections for the lobbying firm.

As disclosure, I do have a financial conflict of interest, as I am here on behalf of CGCN Group through my work at Beutler Ink. I have posted messages to seek review and comment from others, including WikiProjects and other individual editors who have made substantial edits in the past, but I'm not getting any response. Any additional assistance or input from you would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@16912 Rhiannon: Apologies for the late reply. Unfortunately, I have no interest in reviewing this request, but it seems that others have handled this. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 16:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Wiae. 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)

Hello Wiae, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

and belated greetings right back at you! /wiae /tlk 00:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wiae, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

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.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for going through the copyvio drafts. Just a note, the |cv| in the decline notice shoudln't be turned into a |cv-cleaned| until the page has been revdel'd. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I'll leave the parameter switch for the admins to handle :) /wiae /tlk 17:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't even know it existed until recently, and the "instructions" aren't exactly obvious. Primefac (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wiae, 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)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jodie Mack. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from jodiemack.com/files/jmcv917.pdf. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Jodie Mack may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dial911 (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Submitting an article via AfC has been enlightening. /wiae /tlk 10:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from http://www.jodiemack.com/files/jmcv917.pdf. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Jodie Mack may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hasteur (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hasteur: It's not a copyright violation. Primefac already reviewed and undid a previous decline for "copyright violations". /wiae /tlk 23:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So you didn't read what I wrote on the Draft. Fundamentally 70% of the content of the draft was from the subject's own CV/Resume. That's unacceptable It needs to be fundamentally rewritten without depending on subject of the draft's own words. Hasteur (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hasteur: That's the number you found on Earwig's copyvio, yes. It picked up a list of awards, which is arguably not protected by copyright. There is no other way to phrase an award that a subject has won. Maybe there's an argument about the ordering of the awards, but that should probably go to a copyright expert, maybe WP:CP.

Outside of the list of awards, at best I see one sentence that needs to be reworded because it is way too close to https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/people/jodie-mack, and one quote that is spammy and useless (neither added by me, I might add). I'm not trying to pin the blame on you Hasteur—you're a good guy and even though I don't think this is a copyright violation, you made a reasonable call with the decline. Nonetheless this AfC exercise has been extremely frustrating. I don't know why a new editor would want to use this process. I know that by saying that, I place a load of blame on myself, since I used to review drafts at AfC fairly frequently (and probably poorly). I don't know though, something about this whole process has to change. /wiae /tlk 23:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Again you seem to be missing the point. CopyVio is just the easiest way to nab this, but it is fundamentally Jodie Mack's own Self Published words that caused me to go for full blanking. If you're as experienced, you should know better. Hasteur (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's not copyvio, then one wonders why it was declined as such. Further, use of self-published sources is not a valid rationale to blank a draft. The reviewing instructions do not say anything to that effect. Further, there is a perfectly good version of the draft without the self-published sources sitting in the draft's history here; one could always roll back to that version rather than blanking entirely. /wiae /tlk 00:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you plan to decline drafts for copyright violations (which, again, this draft is not), then please follow the full reviewing instructions and request revision-deletion of the revs in question. The copyvio decline template says as much: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history, as do the reviewing instructions: In no event should you simply decline and leave the copyright violation sitting in the page history. You know the AfC system is working exactly backwards when the draft submitter has to explain to the reviewer how the reviewing process is supposed to work. /wiae /tlk 12:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Draft:Jodie Mack, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Per your comment you should know better. Do it again, and I will submit this to MFD. Hasteur (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really must disagree. In what universe is "are you seeing this?!" a personal attack? You are more than welcome to take this to MfD, or whatever venue you choose. But please do not remove my comments from the draft. /wiae /tlk 22:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hasteur, making me aware of your latest decline (which was slightly unnecessary since I'm watching the draft, but appreciated) is not a "personal attack". If anything your edit summary is closer to that (but it's not, because it's your opinion, which you're entitled to).

And for what it's worth I removed the two lists, leaving four sections of content to be evaluated. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I don't have time right now to do more than bag and tag those paid articles, so your assistance is appreciated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your 3O response. I was approaching my limit of civility. —E, aka:2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help resolve issues as they occur. All the best, /wiae /tlk 17:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Atleast bring back my own writing work on s.a engineering page Vinay pugal (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vinay pugal: Unfortunately the text added to S.A. Engineering College was either copied from the school's website or unfailingly promotional in tone. Wikipedia aims to neutrally and dispassionately summarize the reliable, independent sources on a subject, not to describe everything about the topic. That's why I removed the extensive description of minutiae related to the facilities; it was both too detailed and written in too promotional a tone. I encourage you to take a look at some of the links I've added in this reply; you may find them helpful when you write on Wikipedia. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 21:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I received your email and I'm not sure why my edits were removed. I created the page in question two years ago. The edits to add sections for the Dallas Lighthouse for the Blind merger and creation of the William L. Hudson BVI Workforce Innovation Center were linked to webpages that verified the information was correct. I would like the information reposted, and need your input on the best way to do that. Thank you.

Acato1011 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)acato1011

@Acato1011: A few things. First, much of the text you added to Envision, Inc. today was copied directly from https://www.envisionus.com/About-Us/News/Dallas-Lighthouse-To-Merge-With-Envision, a source the text of which is protected by copyright. In fact, the vast majority of text you find online is copyrighted, and as such, per Wikipedia's copyright policy, it cannot be included in Wikipedia. The thing to do is to paraphrase sources in your own words rather than cutting and pasting text into Wikipedia.

Further, much of the text was standard PR-speak, littered with buzzphrases that are at home in a press release (indeed, they came from the company's own "in the news" section, a haven for PR-style writing) but that do not belong in a neutrally written encyclopedia. Please consult Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for the details.

Also, on Wikipedia we try to rely on reliable sources that maintain some independence from the subject itself. A company's own blog or "in the news section" doesn't fit the bill. As such, I won't be reinstating the text.

Finally, please disclose the nature of your connection to Envision. I will point you to both Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, which generally applies when an editor has a personal or professional connection to a subject on Wikipedia, and more specifically to Wikipedia's paid contribution disclosure policy. Note that if you are receiving compensation for your edits to Wikipedia (e.g., through a salary), then you must disclose this connection, or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

So the way forward for you here is to 1) disclose any connection to Envision, and 2) post suggested text on the article's talk page, flagging it with a {{Request edit}} template so that a volunteer can carefully check the text for neutrality, possible copyright issues and suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia.

You are welcome to ask questions here, if you have any. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 19:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Wiae. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion#Weirdly_named_Puppet_handling_3O_requests.
Message added 15:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBigXray 15:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Wiae, 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)

Thank you for providing a third opinion at Talk:Buono! and I have taken your advice to rearrange information into prose. lullabying (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Wiae, 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)