User talk:Falcon Kirtaran

I received a message telling about Sockpuppet investigation. I have just one account as editor with my personal email (atlas@atlas.fun).

I asked the help to Worldofentertainment to start the article Michele Northrup. After I saw an warning on the article that could be deleted because it wasn't on the Wikipedia rules.

I made the modifications on the article by myself, without anymore help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlascortecero (talk • contribs) 01:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archival

The previous contents of this page have been archived.

Dallas Taylor (vocalist)

You sent me a message, and said to leave you a message on this page, but i do not see a section for it, i had made a change to Dallas Taylors (vocalist) page concerning his marriage, the statement on there now, saying his marriage ended because, he was sleeping with other women, is absolutely false, im his best friend, he is recovery from a horrible atv accident(which is written on his page) and he saw this written on his page, it is very harmful, and very untrue, please change it, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.103.204 (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to remove unsourced disparaging concent from biographies of living persons - see WP:BLP. I only reverted your edit because it added unsourced content and looked suspicious due to the lack of an edit summary. Please also be familiar with our conflict of interest policy when editing pages concerning people you are closely connected to. For now, I've removed the offending paragraph. FalconK (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, someone else removed it while I was typing this. Stet, I suppose. FalconK (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the Auth0 page should be deleted?

I gave my rationale on its AfD discussion page. FalconK (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFD vs. CSD

See this. Thanks. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. It might be a little hasty, but I did look for sources for a moment. FalconK (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to improve the article as best I could, but when AFD snowballs to deletion then the AFD was a good idea. It will be less likely the article will be recreated without the proper sources in the future. I've CSD'd the redirect citing the AFD's closure. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert Ban Ki-moon?

I showed references! 211.36.139.46 (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you have cited are opinion pieces, and the statement that he is the worst secretary-general of the UN is not a factual one. I'm not going to toll WP:3RR over this, but please undo your edit. FalconK (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am just proveing a point to a friend. -Buzz

Removal of Mauritius Case

Hi

This is a close family friend of Mr. Eduardo Gil talking. I need to remove the article the case about Mr. Gil's involving fraud case in Mauritius as this was completely irrelevant information. He won the fraud case and I have a proof to show you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanAbrenica (talk • contribs) 11:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, why don't you change it to say that he was charged and then won the case, and cite a source? FalconK (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo Offensive 2016

I have clearly explained, pretty adequately, why I removed the subject. in case you missed it: "(Only western point of view included, I am keeping this section away from the article until Russian and/or Syrian rebuttals are included as well. Only can that be considered neutral, as per Wiki's policy, by having all points of view being included.)"

Your restoration of this portion is a disgrace to neutrality, not only did you restore it without understanding the intentions behind the removal, you probably do not even know the history behind this removal. Ekograf have been submitting biased, baseless accusations towards Russia and Syria from western sources without submitting the relevant rebuttals from Russian and/or Syrian sources. I have already warned him that it wasn't neutral if only one point of view was included, he not only restored the post, but added more biased and baseless accusations despite the warning. he also have the cheek to mention, I quote: (ALL points of view need to be presented by all parties per WP's policy on neutrality.), despite only submitting ONE point of view. He is clearly not interested in neutrality at all and you should be ashamed of yourself for not investigating further before trying to lecture me.

I WILL remove that section until he adds ALL points of view.

42.61.144.223 (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looked like the removal of sourced content. Those doing the accusing may be biased, but information that accusing was done isn't. Why don't you add the opposing points of view yourself, with appropriate citations? FalconK (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I be the one adding it when the rebuttals by Russia are in those very articles? It's obvious that EkoGraf have no intention of being neutral and by removing his content is the only way to force him to carry out the very neutrality he has the cheek to stuff into my face. 42.61.144.223 (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Because it would be the most productive way to resolve the conflict. All you need to do is write a couple lines taken from facts in reliable sources about what others have said. This would be a billion times faster than trying to force User:EkoGraf to do it by removing content, and wouldn't draw ire from RC patrollers. FalconK (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - First, I am not biased against Russia and Syria as you accuse me off. If anything, I am for Russia and Syria since they are fighting the jihadists that my own father died fighting in Bosnia. So I find your accusation a bit offensive. However, I know how to keep a neutral stance in editing Wikipedia, without letting my emotions dictate what I write here. Second, per WP policy, all of the cited sources are reliable media outlets. And per WP policy we are obligated to write what they report on. The section is called reactions, and we wrote the reactions of the US, France and UK. As Falcon Kirtaran says, you can feel free to insert Syria's and Russia's denials of the accusations. I myself don't have time to do everything because I'm following and updating a dozen articles on Wikipedia. However, I should warn you that removing properly sourced information along with its sources in the way that you did is non-neutral point of view pushing which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, you should stick to Wikipedia's policy on Civility and Assuming good faith from your fellow editors. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of Mauritius Case

I'm working out about the issues regarding with Mr. Gil. I personally knew Mr. Eddie Gil but I want to know where your information came from that Mr. Gil did the wrong doings and against the law. We will file a case against you if you're going to put the article again. So please don't put an information regarding him if you don't know him personally — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanAbrenica (talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me your quarrel is with! However, Wikipedia does have a policy about editing while making legal threats at WP:NLT. FalconK (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Malaysia

Hi, just wanted to let you know that you reverted this edit in Religion in Malaysia, but the editor was onto something -- they were noting that the previous edits were vandalism. I've undone the vandalism and let the editor know that they were on the right track, but they were just tackling the problem in the wrong way. Just thought I'd let you know in case something like it comes up in the future. :) Thanks, Somno (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CMU SV

CMU SV does not have the post of director any more. Please refer here. You won't find Martin Griss since he has resigned. Also, the Provost is same as that for CMU (refer here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.152.214 (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I've restored it for you, and added a citation. FalconK (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

?

Can you give me the space and time to work on this article ! its my first article on Wikipedia and i'm aiming to make a positive addition. so appreciate your comments and recommendations. Alfarhat (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must not remove Articles for Deletion templates from articles until the discussion on them is closed. I recommend you go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mazen_Khaddaj to discuss the article there instead. FalconK (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Energy policy of China (section)

Hi there, I hope you are well! The information that I removed is 9 years old and the quote that China is building 562 coal power plants and at a rate of 2 per week is very very out of date. This was precipitated thought a conversation on reddit. It is a fact that China and the US lead the world with investment in renewable energy http://www.techinsider.io/top-renewable-energy-investments-by-country-2016-3/#2-united-states-441-billion-9.

It is hard to demonstrate how many they may still be building per week, but the rate is not out pacing the coal power plants that they are closing. I have provided some links that demonstrate that emissions have peaked in China and that coal power has begun to decrease. http://www.energypost.eu/chinas-electricity-mix-changing-fast-co2-emissions-may-peaked/ And under the problems section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.56.40 (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK! As long as you cite something, feel free to write it like it is! FalconK (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Hey! thank so much. I think removing the section works well and the accurate info is started below on the topic of coal production. I just noticed that the parts I deleted were in the context of building power plants and not coal production/mining which is what the section is discussing, so that kind of puts another tick why it should be removed. Anywho! Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.56.40 (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @24.108.56.40: Yeah, looking at it more, I definitely agree with you. I've gone ahead and restored your version (with the outdated ephemeral information removed). Just FYI, if you leave an edit summary explaining what you're doing, it's a lot less likely that anyone will think it's just indiscriminate removal of content. FalconK (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i wrote this message before since were not religious scholars we should remove it

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of tools for Denial-of-service attacks (October 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by NewYorkActuary was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of tools for Denial-of-service attacks and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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.

NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Falcon Kirtaran, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Buffer overflow

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Buffer overflow you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maury Markowitz -- Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rendering places of birth or death where the political geography has changed.

It has been my understanding that a person's birthplace is rendered in their Bio Box according to political geography of the time. For instance, George Washington's birthplace is listed as "Bridges Creek, Westmoreland County, Virginia, British America," noting British America and not the modern U. S. The edit in question regards the page of Comanche chief Quanah Parker, who was born in the present-day state of Oklahoma, albeit when the region was known as Indian Territory. A fellow editor has alleged that these birthplace notations are "for modern readers to locate," though most examples I have seen do not reflect this. A closer example would be Chief Sitting Bull, whose page denotes his birthplace as Dakota Territory rather than any modern state in the American union. In the interest of avoiding needless editing conflict, what is the correct policy on this? Sethzel (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I was involved in that article at all, it was only to revert vandalism. However, I refer you to Template:Infobox person for the documentation if not necessarily the consensus: for both places of birth and of death, the name of the place at the time of the vital event is the one that should be used. FalconK (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- No, this did not involve you; you were my introductory greeter to Wikipedia, so I defaulted to you for the proper guidelines. The other user in question has continued to alter the birthplace with emphatic insistence they are in the right. I do not think it is intentional newcomer biting, however. Sethzel (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aah, welcome again! Hopefully this helped. FalconK (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great work! Shilpacs (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Falcon Kirtaran. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Falcon Kirtaran. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of BitLocker

The article BitLocker you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:BitLocker for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Buffer overflow

The article Buffer overflow you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Buffer overflow for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maury Markowitz -- Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WIS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WIS. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WIS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Falcon Kirtaran. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vampire lifestyle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vampire lifestyle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire lifestyle (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Qwirkle (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cortana reassessment

Cortana, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. TheAwesome Hwyh 16:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French People

The changes I made to French People were simple rewordings removing the idea that had not been stated in Mr Renan's Statements, that racism was a quote "inherent" and immutable part of Colonialism. No references should be needed to remove content that says Colonialism is always racist as it is the removal of an opinion/personl viewpoint and not the insertion of new information. HalalSquad (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I wonder if I misread my screen while RC patrolling, and thought you'd added what you'd removed. Sorry about that, carry on! FalconK (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax edit war

Hi Falcon,

  All the information I posted is true and I have links and documents to prove it.  WinterMage42 called me on the phone and we spoke for 2 hours, my telephone number is public on syntaxband.com/facebook syntaxtheband. WinterMage42 was impressed at all of the information I have in my criminal investigation file as 3 members of US Syntax worked for the IRS in 1983-1986. WinterMage42 said he would let me add the information to the wikipedia Syntax band page and he would leave it up this time. He wanted me to include even more of the information in the Syntax back story we discussed on the phone on to the wikipedia page. Much of the information comes from the book I am writing on the subject called "Syntax - The Grayson Incident". You can see I am the owner of uspto trademark 4639300 and through this exchange we can bring both Mike Touriner and Jan Burton back from what the trademark infringement settlement with Sony/CBS has done to their lives. WinterMage42 claims to have conversations with Jan Burton and has been shown photo ID to prove his identity and is interested in Licensing the trademark from me so they can record again. WinterMage42 is checking with Jan Burton to see if his Sony Contract will allow him to record under the name "Syntax". If you check the page on Kerry Livgren you will see Sony did not allow him to even record outside the Christian market.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhmartens (talk • contribs) 07:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! There are very few exceptions to the WP:3RR (the 3 revert rule), and adding content to articles doesn't fall under any of them - even if the content is true. I have a couple suggestions, though. For starters, if you want to add content, please make sure it complies with the manual of style -- it can't, for example, be written in the first person. Disputes about the content should be resolved on the article's talkpage, not by constantly reverting one another's edits. Otherwise, you two could revert each other to kingdom come and the only thing that would come out of it is extra work for people who review recent changes. FalconK (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollei 35

There was an easy and obvious fix to the Rollei 35 article. Merely reverting what I did was not productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.100.224 (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was reverted because you added "GET ON WITH IT". In the future, your edits are less likely to be reverted if you just make your intended change; commentary added to articles is generally considered vandalism. FalconK (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi Falcon Kirtaran. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FalconK (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prods & CSD's

Greetings, and welcome to NPP. Thanks for taking the time. Just a head's up, but a couple of years ago, NPP decided that articles that have been tagged for Prod, or CSD, should not be marked as reviewed. You can mark those which have been sent to AfD, but not the other two. You can see the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 30#Should we stop marking articles tagged with CSD and PROD as 'reviewed' now that we can filter them in the NewPagesFeed?. Thanks. And don't hesitate to ask questions, either on the NPP reviewer talk page, or to other editors who do work on NPP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; thanks. FalconK (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion - Ibrahim Amir

Hi, this is with regards to your nomination to delete the articles Ibrahim Amir and Ahmed Amir. I have included additional sources from Haveeru Daily, Mihaaru and Dho. Could you please have a look and confirm if the articles now deserve to be included in Wikipedia main space. If the articles are voted to be kept, I will work on expanding the career part since I am "swimming" through the archives searching for other reliable sources too. ShappeAli (talk)

AfD comments

Hello, I noticed and commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are You Ready (Hannah Montana song). As part of an ongoing cleanup of non-notable songs articles, I'd very appreciate if you can comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hot Kinda Love, as the discussion has stalled for quite a bit now. Thank you, and I hope you a prosperous year ahead after passing this one hell of a year that is 2020, HĐ (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've chimed in. FalconK (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Barrotta

Why did you nominate his page for deletion? A. Julian 10:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by A.JulianEditor (talk • contribs)

I explained my rationale at the AfD page. Feel free to chime in there. A review of the relevant notability guidelines may help, particularly WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO. FalconK (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job

I just observed this tag, if it is contested please do alert me. I intend to take it to AFD. That’s blatant COI if I i have ever seen one, can’t tell how that evaded scrutiny for so long. Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have a small personal project to root these out whenever I have time to. Will let you know if it escalates! FalconK (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD comments (yet again...)

Hello, thank you so much for your comments on the last AfD for Red Hot Kinda Love. Your argument was very well constructed and certainly helpful. I was wondering if you could also comment on some recent AfDs... including Harajuku Girls (song) and Complicated (Rihanna song)? Sorry for bothering you this way, it's just that I think you may have some pieces of wisdom that the current editors lack in their rationale to keep/delete/redirect the articles. Thank you, and I hope you have a fulfilling year ahead (pretty sure nothing can get worse than last year, I suppose). HĐ (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article that shouldn’t be deleted

The article I created, GSU Soccer Complex, should not be deleted. There is no reason to delete it, as there are articles that I’ve seen that should be deleted but they aren’t. GSU Soccer Complex is an important part of college soccer, and should be kept as an article. Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you participate in the AfD discussion linked from the article then. But do take a read of WP:OTHERSTUFF. FalconK (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello Falcon Kirtaran,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LMR

I am new to Wikipedia. I entered my companies name LMR and mentioned it is initials meaning Leo M Roy. And also stated my main dba's Drain Works and Vanda World.

Why was that wrong. I've owner LMR since 1995 and legally registered on USA and Canda Vandaworld (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I reverted it because the fact isn't significant to the disambiguation page and the targets (Mr. Roy or any of those companies) don't seem to meet the notability standard. Also check out WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:PROMO. FalconK (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SERIESA

Nice. I might start linking to that. I'd give ya a barnstar thingy if I thought it'd mean something to you! HighKing⁺⁺ 21:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FalconK (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about a version of the Source Assessment Table but tuned towards NCORP requirements? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be a great idea. So much of that part of AfD concentrates on the reliability of the source, and not the independence or whether the coverage is substantial. FalconK (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry

Sorry I made a mistake my bad!!

Donald Trump 2024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4B00:1260:11CD:EDA8:8D89:F786 (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of edit

Hi Falcon. I received a message saying you had removed my edits to Global Hotel Alliance, as you thought it "less than neutral". I'm curious as to what part made you feel like that. All of the content is factual and informative. I don't see where any part of it is opinion. Can you please clarify. I am happy to revise if I understand the issue (nb this is my first contribution). Thanks & regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PointsNplaces (talk • contribs) 00:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what tipped me off during recent changes patrolling was the phrase "bespoke local experiences". It's important to avoid taking a promotional tone in the article. I hate to ask, but you're not affiliated in any way with the hotel chain I hope? FalconK (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Mz7 (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Explain what's non-constructive

About stating a well documented fact about Garret and the traffic light (invented SEVERAL years earlier.) Thanks! 2600:1702:2350:20F0:31FF:9A14:309E:C047 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Capital punishment in the United Arab Emirates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic court. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Falcon Kirtaran/Scripts/iglooMain.js

Hi,
One of your userscripts, User:Falcon Kirtaran/Scripts/iglooMain.js, is currently checking against the oversight group. The internal name for this group has recently been changed to suppress, meaning any checks against oversight will fail. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#oversight group renamed (breaking change) for more information. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 20:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your excellent essay at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Crunchbase scope_creep^Talk 07:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

Hello Falcon Kirtaran,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 804 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 852 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations \| June 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

Hello Falcon Kirtaran,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000^[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.^[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 12593 articles, as of 08:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol \| July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felixstowe Ferry

You keep deleting family history from the felixstowe ferry page. I have now lived there for a mere 37 years after being born in a house there. I believe I know much more about it's history than you. Gbrspratt (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Looking at the history, I haven't touched it since January. But when I did revert your changes, I left you an explanation. For example, when I saw this edit of yours, I was doing recent changes patrol. I noticed that your edit did not include a citation, and that is why I reverted it - no matter how much you may personally know about the area, all content in Wikipedia must be verifiable, which generally requires a citation to a reliable source. If you can find some - local histories, especially if digitized, are an excellent resource for this - you're welcome to add the content back. As an RC patroller I'm not personally interested in the article, and it's unlikely I'll interact with it again unless it shows up in the queue. FalconK (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

Hello Falcon Kirtaran,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination: MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message

Hi Falcon Kirtaran,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Deletion

Hello @Falcon Kirtaran. How are you? I am fine. I was notified of the lack of independent sources for the article Adetola Nola, This is my first artcle as wikipedian for many years *Life Happened, Lol.) I did my research on the topic and I referenced sources which I believe they are independent sources, are these sources not considered enough? Since its my first article, I would appreciate if you can help me point out where I could improve this article. @Falcon Kirtaran I would love you to help me point out what to do to improve the article . Regards. Thisiswhyiambroke (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article for deletion because I'd previously proposed its deletion for notability reasons (see WP:BLP and WP:ANYBIO), it was deleted, and now it's back. In general if all we can say about someone is they've started successful businesses and appeared on a Forbes list, it's not likely that person is notable. The problems with the sources you've cited when it comes to establishing notability (not facts) are generally that they're either dependent or don't cover the subject in adequate depth. Remember that we need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources to justify an article; this is intentionally a very high bar and not everyone mentioned in the press should have an article. The two Vanguard sources are interviews; sources that rely mostly on the subject for their information are dependent sources, and this couldn't be clearer if the article is an interview transcript. The articles have to be about the subject of the biography; the Punch article is about Lagos Business School and its training of real estate professionals. The source in the Guardian is marginal; it generally meets the criteria, but it's a list of profiles, so whether it's significant coverage is debateable. It also relies heavily on quotes from the subject. That addresses the theme. We generally expect that biographical articles about businesspeople be written after the businesspeople are in the news for different things over a period of time; if it's just publicity that attaches to being a company founder, an article is not appropriate. FalconK (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback on this article. It will help me greatly in improving the article. I will do more research on the subject and try to improve the article.

Permit me to add you to my mentor's list and how I can also help grow this community by learning from you. Thanks Thisiswhyiambroke (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP not Crunchable, Great Essay!

Hi, I read your essay the other day as a result of you commenting on the AfD for William R. Assoc. and really enjoyed it. It was very helpful and clear. It's particularly valuable given the fact that I don't really think there is enough discussion of where the line of significant coverage is and in my limited experience that is where a lot of the issues arise. Thanks again! Jtrrs0 (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad to hear this! Thank you! FalconK (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Falcon Kirtaran,

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

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

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

Suggestions:

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

Backlog:

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

Reminders

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

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmedal Electricals

Hi @Falcon Kirtaran: I reopened that Afd. I don't know if you want to comment on it. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Thanks for letting me know FalconK (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Falcon Kirtaran,

Backlog

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

2022 Awards

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

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

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

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

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

Reminders

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

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol \| May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Falcon Kirtaran,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

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

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New pages patrol needs your help!

Hello Falcon Kirtaran,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Falcon Kirtaran,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Falcon Kirtaran:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Falcon Kirtaran,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol \| September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

[1] t including another ~6,000 redirects

[2] The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

[a]

[b]