Knowledge talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

1368:. Current policies and guidelines still reflect that view. If the article ends up in draftspace the creator will probably get the hint, because for better or worse AfC has codified "GNG sources up-front" as an extra requirement of that process, but that doesn't help them get it right in the first place and we shouldn't be enforcing the AfC project's local consensus in mainspace (I also don't think your view that new editors ought to use AfC is widely-held or supported by policy, it is optional). An editor that simply familiarises themselves with written policies and creates an article directly is likely to be surprised by the expectation to cite GNG-qualifying sources, because not only is that expectation not in those policies, it is apparently contradicted by several of them (e.g. 2867:) has failed and you've confirmed that no SNG applies, you should still move an article to draftspace. More generally speaking there has never, to my knowledge, been an affirmative community consensus on using draftspace to deal with notability concerns. Nor is it part of any written policy or guideline. As a practice it sort of crept in through the cracks and as such is poorly justified and documented (as discussed above). I suspect (but don't know) that the wider community still expects issues of 'borderline' notability to be decided by consensus at AfD, not the judgement of an individual reviewer. – 4297:

worry about. If you want a script: "Sorry about that! I tagged the article for attention because I noticed that a page at this title had already been deleted before. Since I'm not an admin, I can't see the version that was deleted, so I can't be sure whether the new article is substantially identical or not. I'm supposed to tag articles for deletion in this case and let the admins sort it out. Don't worry, an admin will review the deletion tag and decline it without deleting your article if it is not substantially identical to the deleted version. Thanks for contributing to Knowledge!" --

5272:

editing here so a 1 hour gap in editing doesn't mean they don't intend to edit the article further. I would suggest that the 24 hours only applies to AfD, draftification or redirecting the article. Tagging the article after an hour may serve as a pointer to the creator where the shortcomings are and can try and resolve them before the 24 hours when more drastic action may be taken. Many will probably ignore the tag but hopefully some will make the required improvements. I would also suggest the 24 hours starts from the last edit not from the article creation time.

6214:). In other words, as long as there's consensus to do this, the time it may take to implement such a change could take anywhere from seven days to the end of time; big changes like that aren't done haphazardly. Long story short, if you have not done so yet, I recommend participating in the TFD discussion so the closer knows and has an understanding that a straight up redirection is not the answer, and that the discussion should go to the holding cell after it is closed until all tools are updated in whatever fashion they need to be to resolve this. 374: 1507:

the AFC standard which is that if it has a good chance of surviving at AFD it should be passed. Which most of the time boils down to meeting/ not meeting wp:notability. Often I've seen afc reviewers decline articles for different criteria such as article quality issues. Another layer of complexity is that the defacto GNG standard at AFC is a bit more lenient in some areas than a strict interpretation of GNG and it takes a few thousand reviews and a close look at a few hundred AFD's to try to learn what that standard is.

279: 267: 6210:

gotta complain and say that the person doing something to suggest an improvement to the encyclopedia is doing something wrong. Either way, what you are referring to regarding a seven day window is actually not a true concern: What happens at TFD is after there is consensus for something to change, the change isn't technically implemented until there is reassurance that everything has been done with all affected tools and templates to ensure nothing breaks as a result of implementing the discussion's result. (See

4187:" In previous cases where I have been unable to assess how "substantially identical" the page is (because it's since been deleted) I've had to take to inferring from the arguments in the AfD and see if the now public version "addresses" those concerns. Previously, I've found that if I still had those concerns, I simply tagged and would assume the patrolling admin would make the call on the first condition of the tag. However, an editor has previously gotten quite upset with this method, which is fair, it wasn't 4608:. When I send an article to draft I try to leave a note offering to help because I know that feeling can be really demoralizing. Maybe we could create a tag either on the article or it's talk space with a reminder that new pages are eligible to be sent to draft after 24 hours? That way casual NPP folk don't accidentally send something to draft too soon and folk who are working on articles aren't confused when they come back a few days latter and find the article they've started work on is now in draft space. 1360:

article, then why and how are you supposed to produce these extra sources? I don't know what new editors think about draftifications (it'd be great if someone did a proper study of that one of these days), but what I see is that a lot of creators who receive this message simply abandon their article, moreso than more straightforward issues like "has no sources" or "you have a conflict of interest". A reasonable hypothesis to explain that is that they don't understand what to do, but I don't know for sure.

403: 5537:

Especially because we need it to be the norm that editors find and include GNG sources for GNG-dependent articles. BTW I had two articles taken to AFD when I was a newbie. One (a fork) should not have been made and was AFD'd by someone who gave me wise and friendly advice. The other was by someone who ended up getting reigned in later on for hounder/stalker stuff. So I did have that experience / a baptism by fire and for better or for worse and learned immensely from both.

4996:– I don't think we're trying to say it will, but I do think it often gives some articles a better chance than they'd have otherwise. I just strongly believe it's less bitey than sending an article to AfD, especially when we (at least I try to) stress that draft space is optional. If we send something to AfD and it gets deleted you're telling someone their work needs to be deleted, draft space tells them they can do more, and won't be losing what they work on. 392: 1034:(sorry, I don't mean to criticise this action specifically, I just needed an example and it's representative). It has one citation to one source that fully verifies the current content. If we assume that there are more sources available, where should they be placed? Adding an inline citation to the current text would be superfluous because it is already fully verified, and they might not actually support that material. Is it expected that the creator 355: 316: 385: 1806:

band/singer has ever recorded having it's own article. We already see this attempted at the back of the NPP queue with redirects of songs or albums being converted to stubs with little content except a track listing or a 'nth track of X album' and a list of band members. IMO NPP not checking for notability opens the floodgates and could lead to Knowledge being more of a collection of information than an encyclopaedia. --

3887:: You've had two different admins tell you it's okay. Draft space is entirely optional and, if you're concerned about the article being marked as reviewed, simply mark it as unreviewed. As for xtools, there's no way of changing that, the redirect left behind will always show that and you have to accept it. Good thing is it's mostly meaningless since people have their redirects overwritten or G6 deleted all the time. 5647:

These different areas of Knowledge have differing cultures. My initial proposal cannot not address those comprehensively. But reducing the amount of time navigating between all of these can be a net saving for reviewers and editors alike, while recognizing they're all vital to the project and also improve the articles in the end whether it is more solo time to edit, feedback and or collaborative contributions.

2471: 5080:: While I disagree with you about a "de-facto deletion button", as I do process a lot of G13 deletions (drafts not edits for 6 months), I do recognize that it might be confusing for newer editors. I think what might be more confusing is for their work to be nominated for deletion early on instead of being told to put some extra work in to make it better, but I understand not everyone feels the same way. 6121: 2260:, and we would then likely grant you a trial. In this case, I'll skip that step, since I've gone ahead and reviewed your profile, I'm going to grant you a two-month trial. Thank you for interest. Please request an extension or the rights permanent at the proper venue a week or so before the perm is set to expire. Thank you for volunteering and please never be afraid to ask any questions! 5708:

exception/common sense remains anyways) or other exceptional content that can be immediately removed, problematic content can/does stay up longer. Even with AfD nomination, the content remains for at least 7 days minimum. For people specifically looking for spammy/first hour articles, they should be able to disable the filter still, i.e admins with CSD experience. Comment on @

3643:. I’m autopatrolled as well as being a reviewer so I was surprised to see that the page looks unreviewed. Is that a change in process that I’ve overlooked or might there be some technical hiccup I should attend to? Of course always happy to have more eyes on new work, just wondered what was up and if I had missed anything important. Thank you for any insight! 5440:

article I was working on). Clearly met notability and I already had the references lined up and was going to put them in within a few minutes of starting the article, but a couple minutes after starting the article it was draftified (by an experienced wikipedian, but not a NPP reviewer regular) and here was the message and exchange:

1401:

had will likely be gone if they even remember to come back. And with the move away from easy-to-understand SNGs in recent years towards GNG-only on Knowledge, their draft will likely get declined anyway. And you have to have 500+ edits and 6+ months to get access to Newspapers.com (at least you used to, I don't see any guidance at

4929:

expected quality of a standard Knowledge article. Understandably, nearly every AFC nomination is turned down, and let's not even discuss how long an article must wait to be reviewed there. To put it another way, draftification won't prevent an article from being deleted. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I'm trying to say.

3870:, You sure that it won't look like I'm abusing my autopatrolled rights. Also, I believe admins have many important tasks to deal with so I don't want to add another AFD. Also, it will appear as a recreated article in the page curation and xtools which I don't want. Hope, you both are getting me. Thanks for your consideration. 3248:

valid for. I think I'll sign up for the project and get some mentoring after the sprint. It will be mixed articles where you have hand-written contents with section or paras that are generated that will be most difficult to spot, or even the odd bit here and there. I guess eventually it was stand out like a sore thumb.

1732:

experienced and confident reviewer, and that seemed fairer than picking on a newer reviewer. I'm not here to make an argument against draftifying, just to better understand expectations regarding this specific reason and how it can be reconciled with written policies and guidelines (it is not currently documented in

5445:(with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Knowledge's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. (by XX) 4791:

I've noticed that at AfD when people try to advocate for moving articles to draft space you'll get folks coming out of the woodwork to claim that sending articles to draft is just around about deletion. I don't even bother trying to advocate moving articles at AfD to draft so I can work on them later

4742:

instead of giving newer users more space and allowing them to work on things in draft space. There's a really strange view of draft space by some people that I think they need to shake off. Draft space is optional, but it's a very useful place to invite newer users to work on something more casually,

2993:

is the best option. If the creator is interested in having an article on it, I'd recommend recreating with a human written article with a couple of good GNG or near-gng sources. Short would be fine. Or perhaps the creator would be willing to take a chainsaw to it and reduce it to such in order to

1547:

a problem if de facto expectations have diverged from written expectations, because newbies only have a chance of learning the latter. Like Newimpartial I'm unsure of what to do about it: whether to try and get the new generation of NPPers to return to policy as written, or to try to adapt policy and

1335:

and the article wizard.) If they don’t know these things, they can ask at the teahouse or their wiki-mentor (if they were assigned one). Or click any of the thirteen informative links in the draft template that gets placed on the article after draftification. Are you seeing good-faith editors getting

1330:

I typically expect a newer editor will use the AfC process to make articles, and indeed draftification is a nudge that the editor in question ought to use that process. When I review at AfC is when I put in the effort to handhold. If an editor wants to create directly in mainspace I tend to feel like

1289:

Right, I'm asking to confirm that those are the kind of things reviewers expect to happen after draftifying an article, and/or whether one way is preferred over others (though no there doesn't necessarily have to be one). I'm also trying to put myself in the shoes of a newer editor and imagine, given

5439:

OK, having been on the receiving end, here's what bitey looks like, having been on the receiving end myself. About 2 years ago (having I'd guess a few thousand NPP reviews under my belt at the time) . I started an article (sort of a technical gnomeish one, needed to internal-link from a FA rescue

5336:

Hm, what I was thinking of was just changing the "this is too close to the front of the queue, leave it" boundary to be longer than 1 hour. Right now, anything created less than an hour ago has an orange outline on the timestamp in the new pages feed and a warning not to tag it. So I wouldn't expect

5041:

Also, to respond to other comments above, AfC articles being denied despite the article not meeting AfD standards is also a problem. I approve like 50% of AfC articles I look at. They might be non-optimal sometimes but again, the standard is not whether or not I like it. People have to stop applying

4951:

Both DRAFT and AfD are scary places for new editors, but either way this proposal won't address that. It merely avoids proposing any kind of interaction for at least 24 hours, saving new editors and reviewers alike avoidable headaches. Even as an experienced editor, I do not think my edits within an

4567:

I would support this. I can attest that I found getting tagged by NPP within even a few hours of creation to be annoying and unhelpful, when I was starting out. Since articles that haven't been patrolled aren't search indexed, leaving articles for a day to give their creators time to actually finish

3275:

discussion? I am inclined to say yes because proposed merges are more analogous to AfDs, which we mark as reviewed, than PRODs or CSDs, which we do not. Like AfD, they end with a determination of consensus regarding the article's notability, and once a proposed merge discussion is started, the merge

3035:

The GTPZero is in the reviewer menu list. If that is not trusted, is there any automated tools that can be trusted? If not then is it assumed that we've got to build up expertise on it. I'm not sure if I would've recognised it without the IP editor. Its looked relatively well-written and structured.

5688:

I think we have basically no consensus for the 24 hours thing at all, such that it's probably not worth wondering what the difference would be (aside from our own curiosity, I guess). But I would be curious to know if other NPPers thought it might be a good idea to move the "one-hour editing space"

5666:

One thing I'm curious about is whether that would apply to feedback on articles, such as adding maintenance tags. I often try to refrain from adding maintenance tags within the one-hour editing space so editors don't feel like they're being attacked while actively working on an article. However, if

5504:

Well, for me, either would not be bad because I knew the situation and how it would end up. And I've had the thickest skin training (NPP) available on Knowledge. For a newbie, I'm guessing that AFD would have been rougher. BTW I just realized that it is worth mentioning this was not a NPP review,

5489:

See and that's the problem, not the usage of draft space itself. NPPHOUR would have been crucial there and it's been a good thing that we upped it from 15 minutes to an hour. Do you think it would have been worse if your article was nominated for deletion instead of moved to draft space? Fwiw, that

5083:

As for the AfC approvals you speak of, how many of those were draftified and re-submitted without changes? The way forward is to work on when is best to draftify, not to not consider it as a viable option. If you have interest in reviewing items that have been draftified, I encourage you to look at

4343:

Another question I have - can I publish articles without needing it to be approved? I have 31 edits via my account? If so, is there a different type of creation process? Meaning am I using the wrong type of sandbox? When I search for sandboxes, I am always coming up with various types. I like using

1585:

Regarding the above "NPP and AfC procedures typically require that an article contain sources that demonstrate notability "right now" for approval" that is more of a practical reality than a philosophy. What is the practical alternative? The impossible hypothetical .......for a reviewer to solidly

1551:

As for AfC, it's always been a little askew of the wider community when it comes to eventualism vs. immediatism (a function of seeing only the worst articles, I suppose). I suspect that part of the explanation for NPP's drift in that direction is that from when we set up the NPR user right in 2016,

1542:

I've certainly seen that kind of drift and tension over my time here. I don't think it can be waved away as NPPers enforcing GNG "as written" – because you'll find nothing there about citing sources in articles for notability purposes or assessing the notability of a subject based on the sources in

1506:

Well, wp:notability is complicated but in my ~15 years I haven't seen any big shift or overarching view at AFC or NPP. Also NPP'ers I think simply try to implement the wp:notability guidelines as written. So it simply means meeting GNG or a recognized SNG. At AFC the reviewers often don't follow

1038:

the article with the additional sources? Or can they be provided elsewhere, e.g. in a further reading section, on the talk page, or to the reviewer directly? In either case, how is it communicated to the creator that a) this is what they should do and b) they should have done so in the first place?

5646:

There are certainly many things to improve in NPP, but this discussion here is difficult to follow or find consensus because it is so sprawled out and echoing longer standing and highly complex interwiki-departmental conflicting philosophies regarding the value of NPP, Draftification, AfC and AfD.

5536:

Hey man im josh, you are absolutely right. I agree. I was already wiki-old (13 years in Knowledge) at the time. Just clarifying, they have the NPP tool, but I don't think that they do NPP reviews and this wasn't one. I agree think that draft space is a good thing, my main point was the wording.

5444:

An article you recently created, xxxxxxx is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Knowledge). I've moved your draft to draftspace

5145:

The tension boils down to differing philosophies, but also laziness. AFD participants don't do the full BEFORE search sometimes, DRAFT'ers judge an article by its current form, without fully considering what might happen at AFD or not, and some people like to slap tags without regarding whether it

5141:

I know there are varying philosophies as to purpose of draftification, which is one root issue. I personally believe it should be used, when an article IS notable (would survive AFD) but is in a horrid state in terms of problematic sourcing, promo language and would benefit from improvement before

4390:

Also to actually answer one of your questions — it’s not necessary to use Articles for Creation just to use the visual editor. You can create an article directly in the main encyclopedia by searching the name of the missing article; above the search results will be a red link to create the missing

3343:

The difference is that the AFD is inherently still proceeding even if the nobody notices that the tag is removed. The merge process will end if nobody notices that the tag is removed and so then it will be "in" as a reviewed article. This is another way of saying the same thing that Novem Linguae

2848:

Joe, would I be right to say what you mean is "I don't think draftifying articles of borderline notability was ever widely accepted"? I know you're skeptical of draftification for notability reasons in general, so maybe you mean "I don't think draftifying articles for notability reasons at all was

1523:

Well, I'm afraid I disagree about one key aspect of this - NPP and AfC procedures typically require that an article contain sources that demonstrate notability "right now" for approval, and WP:N doesn't carry that requirement. I didn't mean to imply that NPP or AfC standards had changed over time,

1400:

I never even run into new editors anymore. If there are new editors, they are usually pulled in by the administrative side of things and not writing articles. New editors are nudged toward AfC where they have to wait 3+ months for someone look at their draft, which by that time any enthusiasm they

1363:

I'm getting the impression that what many reviewers (NPP and AfC) want to see is a list of GNG-qualifying sources in the references section of an article. In practice, this means that in most cases the creator will have to write the article around these sources, which is not necessarily an obvious

6209:

I'm not withdrawing this nomination. I'm tired of all the technical issues that have been happening with RFD over the years because of this template. I've done everything that I need to do to make sure that I informed interested parties/forums; but, as usually in classic Knowledge form, someone's

6183:

which has a code-review process and a set deployment schedule. The seven-day timeframe of a TfD is not realistic to implement the features you mention. I suggest you withdraw the TfD and instead start by filing a Phabricator ticket to discuss the specific changes you want for PageTriage. Once the

6029:

They shouldn't be exact copies (but you will be able to see the similar structure, just with different words/slightly different phrasing), because, as buidhe said above, machine translations should never be copy/pasted in without further editing. In this case it is clearly an exact copy of Google

5393:

On the other hand, I've not felt that there is a problem with the current hour (it wasn't so long ago we raised it from 15 minutes) and would be interested to hear more about what motivated this proposal. I know there has been some discussion of NPPHOUR in the current RfA, but I think that's more

5321:

If the right answer is draftification this will mean that multiple NPP will all have to spend time reaching that conclusion because these are articles at the front of the queue. This means either nothing is likely not happen and thus we're adding to the queue and possibly allowing an article that

5271:

templates in this situation but newer editors probably don't know of the existence of these templates. Extending to 24 hours won't make a difference in most cases but would in cases when the editor intends incubating the article. The outside world frequently has an influence on time available for

4296:

By "an editor", I assume you mean "the editor who wrote the page I CSD tagged"? As Novem said, you're in the clear, so my advice for dealing with this would be to apologize and reassure them that an admin won't delete the article if it isn't substantially identical, so they don't have anything to

3316:

An editor can also simply remove an AfD tag even if they aren't supposed to. In both instances, the tag would be restored and the editor removing it would be warned. A proposed merge also always ends in a disposition; if the request is unopposed, the merge goes through. If it's opposed, a neutral

3247:

I've obviously behind and need to catch up. I had a mess about with chatgpt 3 and later 4 when it was released and used it in anger in my busines, but its been months since I looked at it. I've not had the time or the need. The advice on AICLEAN is good but I'm wondering how long its going to be

2182:

are referenced but show up in the queue as having no citations and have 'Redirect (article name)' as the content snippet. All 4 have been recently moved and had no edits since the move. It would seem moving the page causes the problem which resolves when you edit the page. I have no experience of

1488:

Then there is a "newer" view that the notability of a topic should be demonstrated in all published versions of each article through GNG/NBASIC/NORG-level sourcing (depending on the topic). NPP and AfC reviewers tend to be acculturated in this newer view, and have been known to make contributions

1459:

WP:Notability is confusing. But for most cases where this comes up (people, bands, businesses, performers, recordings, video products ) the subject usually doesn't meet an SNG requirement, and "GNG sources up front" is great advice and a practical necessity. If one can't find them, it probably

5389:

If we're going to change the time limit I'd also like to do it based on empirical data on how long creators usually spend on new articles. Anecdotally, I think it's rare that people spend more than 2-3 hours on it after creation, so if a higher limit is needed something in the order of six hours

5178:

Where the draftify vs. AfD argument comes up is in the specific (and dubious) case of articles draftified for notability concerns, and IMO basically comes down to people who see notability as a subjective quality decided by a consensus of editors vs. an objective quality determinable by a single

3901:

I appreciate and accept your opinion and will happily move the article back to mainspace. But I have seen the scenario where an article which was deleted (move to draft cases) and you don't want it to look like recreated or deleted in page curation/xtools. You can seek restoration of the article

3364:

Merge request templates are not one of the standard NPP outcomes. I think it is much more common for the reviewer to either 1) execute the merge immediately themselves, or 2) AFD it and ask for a merge in the nomination statement. Both of those methods are impossible to game, since executing the

2749:

suggests draftifying any time there are fewer than two GNG-confirming sources in the article, you're not able to confirm likely notability with WP:BEFORE or SNG, and the notability is "borderline". This will apply to a lot of articles in the NPP feed, but draftification seems much rarer and more

1805:

I tend to agree with North here. Whilst resumes and adverts can be deleted, that's more about writing style than subject. You can still write about about a non-notable person, business or product without it coming across as an advert or resume. Consider another case, every track a fans favourite

1634:

that these sources must be checked before filing an AFD. However this must also be balanced with the current practice of requiring at least some sources in the article to avoid draftification or BLPPROD. Finally, I am pretty tired of talking about this. It is just a rehash of the inclusionist vs

1359:

don't really understand how you're supposed to respond to this issue, and I'm not particularly new. It's not a question of knowing how to cite sources technically, but if you already know that the subject is notable, and you've already cited sources for all the information that's actually in the

5197:

What evidence do we have that this would actually help creators? My quick look at 50 articles created 24+ hours ago suggests very few are edited in a way that this proposed change would help after an initial burst of activity. Perhaps a better rule would be at least 1 hour since the most recent

4443:

I requested a hist merge instead, but realized that usually those are used for cut and paste moves. In this case, should I have performed the cut and paste move first, or will the hist merge process also move the content? Or perhaps should I have BLAR'd that, as I can see others saying it's not

3437:

I don't think quite such a categorical statement is warranted. For example, a reviewer might think the fine is but would be better merged, and thus both propose the merge and mark it as reviewed. And in general I think we should avoid encouraging people to leave things in the queue indefinitely

1731:

I'm sorry, I really don't mean to criticise your action here. As you gathered I have seen many of your moves to and from draftspace, and if I thought you were doing something wrong I would have told you. I used an article that you draftified as an example precisely because I know that you're an

5142:

getting slashed down to a stub were it placed in mainspace. Sometimes a stub in mainspace is preferable (especially if NONE of the sourcing was salvageable) but if decent sourcing was placed there but would benefit from improved prose/templates, then draft can be a calmer space to work on that.

5114:

where the topic is likely to become notable in the next six months, draftifying really is just a workaround to deletion (whether it's through G13 or back in mainspace at AfD). So if a topic isn't notable, take it to AfD and delete it. Don't draftify it. We shouldn't be wasting editors' time by

4928:

I have to disagree that draftspace is a safe place for beginners to nurture their articles until they are ready for publication. If there's one thing AFC has taught us, it's that, despite having the luxury of editing in draftspace, beginners frequently produce articles that fall outside of the

2428:

Sorry Aszx, I didn't mean for that to sound accusatory, just advisory. So to reiterate in a hopefully more helpful way: I think you should resolve this the same way you'd try to resolve any normal content dispute, on the article talk page. I'm not saying that you should ignore concerns about a

1527:

The only thing that I might see as temporal is the "leaching" of AfC and NPP-derived norms into AfD discussions: I haven't done any systematic study, but I doubt that as many editors based their AfD !votes on the current sourcing of an article, back in Ye Olden Dayes (but of course, I could be

1269:

I’m a little confused by this question because you’ve already suggested many perfectly fine ways: hanging them on an existing sentence they verify; expanding the article; sticking them in a “further reading” section; sticking them on the talk page. If someone linked them on my talk page as the

5414:

Yeah I recall when we changed it from 15 minutes to an hour, and I do think it led to a significant reduction in perceived biteyness and reverted draftifications. I feel the thing we'd need to hammer home more is that NPPHOUR should be referring to an hour from the last edit, not an hour from

1739:

You're of course welcome to assess notability when reviewing. If I'm understanding you correctly, when you use this reason (at least in cases in this), you actually have checked for notability and not found it, but want to give the creator a chance to prove otherwise? I hadn't considered that

5991:

It should not match Google translate because if an editor uses machine translation they must check and edit the output , otherwise it is worse than just having the foreign language article (which users can translate with the same automated tools). I created a template, uw-mt, to remind about

3227:

For me it was pretty obvious that it was either AI or copyvio. That kind of "professional-looking-puffery" (heavily laden with characterizations but professionally done) is the kind of thing that is common in articles elsewhere (which the AI would have tapped) but not in wiki-editor written

5934:

Yeah, I brought this up last drive but now's a good time to bring it up again. Non-attributed translations are actually very common. And since they aren't caught by tools like CopyPatrol, NPP is essentially the only defence against them. What I do for articles that could have been plausibly

5707:

If there are just one or two editors who feel less attacked when we wait a little longer (whether 1,2 or 24 hours), that's already a net win for me. The potential downside is leaving questionable content online for a negligible time period. Unless it is BLP violations, CSD eligible (that

5670:

Additionally, I'm curious if this would have any impact on particularly bad articles (e.g., spam, attack) that may not be flagged by the system. If NPPers are encouraged not to look at articles within 24 hours of the last edit, could we end up with these pages living on Knowledge longer?

3696:

I don't know if this is related. Previously if a redirect was changed to an article that was so poor I reverted to the redirect I had to mark the redirect as patrolled manually. Starting a few weeks ago the redirects have been automatically marked as patrolled because I'm autopatrolled.

1759:

Well, if NPP's didn't have to worry about wp:notability our job would be immensely easy. I could probably OK 1,000 articles per hour. And Knowledge would become several billion resumes, advertisements for businesses and people in trades and businesses, and their products and services.

3831:, A reviewer has moved the article to draftspace with a relevant notability policy. I don't share the same opinion and S/He don't agree with me. It's totally fine, I respect their decision assuming good faith. But, I would like to get the article restored back to mainspace through the 4666:

Seems like this could put a lot of restrictions on NPP front of queue reviewers, and lead to drama as some of the 800 NPPers don't get the memo about the minimum wait time being increased to 24x as long. Wouldn't it be better if we encouraged folks that need more than an hour to use

4048:, several new users have repeatedly removed the speedy deletion tag without addressing the issue. The page is entirely promotional, as it provides extremely detailed company information such as authorised capital, paid up capital etc., and users have even attempted to manipulate the 5560:

I removed modifier words like "please" which are confusing for non-native speakers and added alternate path. This would also reduce someone's experience publishing to mainspace, NPP draftifies them, submit review at AfC. Only thing missing is a suggestion for AfD review on top ~ 🦝

5643:(24 hours) rule is a step forward or backwards from status quo. There's a dearth of data, which admittedly hampers our collective ability to make a truly informed decision. How common is draftification of an article an hour after it was last edited after an hour? After 24 hours? 5038:) standards that an AfD requires. This results in articles being moved that don't meet criteria for deletion. Pairing it with an obscure to newcomers process and an automatic timed deletion, it's a de-facto delete button, that some editors blanketly deploy on hundreds of articles. 3731:

Agree that redirects should not be marked as unreviewed if you are autopatrolled. Presumably there were changes to the PageTriage script recently so redirects are marked at reviewed if you are autopatrolled. I wondered if these changes caused the problem outlined by Innisfree987?

5650:

Regarding whether the 24 hour rule would impede page patrol feed, the NPP feed should be adapted to hide/segment recently created articles that were last edited less than 1-or-24 hours to a different feed, the same way that auto-patrolled articles are labeled separately. ~ 🦝

4701:

right now, the queue warns NPPers about the one-hour window. We could simply change it to warn editors about a 24-hour (or any number of hours) window instead. Any fix that requires new editors to use tags they probably don't even know exist isn't going to work very well. --

4339:

about a month ago and have not gotten much traction on it. I wanted to make sure I labeled it correctly and wanted to see if there was anything I could do to get attention for it for review/approval? Also, I want to know what edits need to be made as I am trying to improve.

5521:

Yeah, I did catch that you mentioned it wasn't an NPP reviewer. I've just been trying to assert the point that draftification (work on it) is less bitey than AfD (delete it) in my opinion, so I wanted to see what you thought since you had a negative experience early on.

5351:

You'd have to scroll through substantially more articles to start at ones that are 24 hours old rather than 1 hour. And for how much benefit? I think I'm still the only one who has tried to collect any data about how much people already are working on articles in the :

3852:: Deletion review is not the appropriate avenue to contest a draftification. If you object to a draftification you move the page back to main space. Editors are welcome to disagree but if you believe it meets then the guidelines that we have in place then just move it. 1833:

to reviewing and the house isn't falling down around us, just like it didn't in the first ~10 years of NPP when it was almost exclusively focused on CSD tagging. If an article is on a potentially non-notable subject but isn't a resume, advert, or similar violation of

1548:

better inform creators about the new regime. Neither are easy, which is probably why this tension has been left to grow for so long. My aim here was to try and better understand what the de facto expectations are, to look for places where we might meet in the middle.

1740:

possibility. It seems a much more promising starting point for untying this knot. But if you don't mind elaborating further, do you not worry that this reduces the chance that another editor (i.e. not the creator), would find the sources, as often happens at AfD? –

5719:

In terms of behaviour, my hunch is a lazy/minimalist reviewer slapping maintenance tags without any other feedback is not as helpful as someone who makes ONE constructive edit/qualitative feedback, along with some maintenance, but there's no easy way to enforce

4472:, now a redirect, is kept. I don't think a history merge is necessarily a good idea here, as the resulting page history will have edits to two different pages which might look weird. As long as the redirect page is not deleted, the history can always be viewed. 955:

As such, in an effort to help with this issue, the coordinator team is looking for individuals interested in taking on additional roles. To be more specific, we're looking for someone interested in helping to recruit individuals and to nominate others for the

2970:

Agree. I think in general my approach would be to tag it, draftify the article, and let the authoring editor know why LLMs are not great for writing wikipedia articles. If they've already been warned about using AI it's probably better to go right to AfD. --

2342:

about my conduct for tagging the article directing me to review general Knowledge policies and guidelines, with no comment on the OR issue at hand or any desire to discuss it. Felt like an odd thing to do for a new page patroller so I am bringing it here.

2883:

I think you'll be gratified to hear that when Thebiguglyalien, who is new to NPP, brought this up in the NPP discord, the answer to "when do you draftify" was a resounding "basically never". It seems to me like we ought to be reworking this flowchart. --

3489:, particularly since it instructs to start a discussion if the merge might be controversial, but I think if you want to capture the other part of your concerns, we should include some stuff about notability as I tried to do above. Open to rewording etc. 4899:

Speaking anecdotally, about 50% of editors like draftspace/draftification and think it is a safe place for new users to incubate their articles until they reach a publishable standard, and about 50% of editors think that draftspace/draftification is a

4775:: It's a presumption of mine not backed up by actual data at this point in time. My belief is draftifications are more likely early on, but if a page has been up for a day or so, I believe it's more likely to get sent to AfD as opposed to draft space. 4907:

At the end of the day, one side believes "draftspace is less bitey than AFD" and the other side believes "draftspace is more bitey than AFD", and I think it is difficult to convince a person who believes one of these things to change to the opposite.

1697:

I think if you review my draft log you will see somewhat of a pattern, and I like to think most of them are at least ones someone could reasonably argue in favour of. Draft space is optional. I'll never double draftify a page, but I do believe in its

1270:

reviewer, that would be less helpful but I’d add them to the article myself and then undraftify. All of those options would make it clear to the reviewer that notability is met. Is there a reason you think there would only be one specific right way?

1186:

Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a provost of a major university may sometimes

6088:

I can usually figure out if it's a translation based on intuition, but most editors are not that lucky. I don't have any tips because I just pick up on various clues about the style of English prose, article organization, reference formatting etc.

5935:

translated (e.g. about a topic from a non-English-speaking country) is: check Google for corresponding articles, and if there aren't any, check Wikidata's entry (at the bottom in the "Knowledge" box). If there are corresponding articles, I use the

4206:

No, only admins can see deleted content. It's ok to take a stab in the dark with g4 though. If you have a lot of declined G4s, nobody will hold it against you. We are working on a tool to help with this in PageTriage, but it is not ready yet.

1166:). Although consensus remains elusive (and seemingly somewhat unlikely), WT:BIO is an excellent place to gain a better understanding of the nuances involved (although perhaps slightly advanced for the greenest of the WP:YFA crowd). Cheers, 1405:

about requirements). Newspapers.com only has stuff from the USA anyway. And all of that is assuming any new editors can even find WP:NEWSPAPERS. There are too many hoops to jump through for new editors nowadays. Most just don't bother.

1137:

page – where there is well informed, robust, and ample discussion (sometimes to a fault). From what I've gleaned there, it seems likely that for the purposes of NPP, someone who is the provost of a major American university such as

1607:

unless there's a specific reason to doubt it and/or compounding problems. Many reviewers already work this way and have done for years. And if there is a reason to suspect the subject is not notable, take it to AfD after doing the

1074:, one of which is notability. It's beyond the scope of NPP to advise how editors should should change the article to make it compliant. (Although most patrollers would offer advice if asked). There are various help pages such as 2816:. My answer is less of a direct answer to that question, you can see that Asilvering and Joe Roe discuss the specifics of it in more detail. But as Joe points to my linked resources here, I'll leave my response for the record. 4402:

Creating articles directly comes with the responsibility of making sure they follow various Knowledge guidelines, so you you may still want to use AfC for the extra double-checking until you’re really confident. Happy editing!

5689:

to 2 or 3 hours. I've certainly seen a bunch of AfC submissions where the article creator was still working on it two hours later, so I'd support making it "NPP2HR", but I assume I've got a wonky sample - ie, that I'm mostly

5593:

As a note, the current templated message from the MoveToDraft script says, "When the article is ready for publication, please click on the 'Submit your draft for review!' button at the top of the page OR move the page back".

4488:

Okay, thanks. I reverted my botched attempts at fixing this in favor of this solution, which seems better. I can't speak for the content of the article, but it seems similar enough to the article that was repeatedly BLAR'd.

1635:

deletionist and anti-draftspace vs pro-draftspace tensions that have been discussed in a dozen places around Knowledge over the last year or two. There is very little to be gained from talking about it over and over again. –

5578:

I've reverted your split and movement of the comments North8000 and I made under this. I don't appreciate the comments being moved to a place that makes it appear as though I'm responding to a completely different comment.

1687:. If it's not an obvious claim, and there's significant work to be done, I'll consider it. If it's been a few days, especially if there were maintenance tags added that weren't addressed, I'll be more likely to consider it. 1476:

I think Joe has correctly identified a tension within the enwiki community about article creation - there is an "older" view that notability inheres in topics that meet GNG or a relevant SNG, and that the notability of the

3295:

Just my opinion, but AFD inherently enforces that a disposition is to be determined.....an editor physically can't un-AFD an article so it's certain that a determination will be made and so it gets unflagged. An editor

4168: 5286:

I don't doubt that this sometimes happens. But I still wonder at what frequency. Creating a large exception to cover rare edge cases doesnt strike me as wise. If it's not rare that's a whole different situation. Best,

1690:

I believe you also follow the page that tracks draftifications, in which case you're probably aware that I have reversed hundreds of draftifications, specifically actually referencing a close you made about the 90 day

5198:

substantive edit (e.g. excluding things like the people who through and do categories or other gnoming type work). So this rule feels like it would make life harder for NPP without actually helping anyone. Best,

2914:

is being reported at GTPZero as been 72%-92% generated. A tag was placed by an IP editor and he/she seems to be accurate. I was quite suprised that the editor recognised it. What is the process to deal with it.

1828:

has a lot to do with it, since before then we were so pressed with blatant junk that it would have been absurd to suggest that we should also become the enforcers of the GNG cult). Many of us still stick to that

1097:

Thanks John. That article was just an example; the broader point is that we can assume that verifiability was not the reason it was removed from mainspace because none of those claims were highlighted as lacking

1056:

I have to disagree the single reference fully verifies the content. It doesn't verify he is American, an astronomer, a physicist or that he obtained a PhD at the University of Texas at Austin. It does say he was

1701:

To be clear, I'm also open to criticisms. I'm also aware you're not one in favour of over using draft space. I think there's a middle ground higher than your threshold, but I respect the argument you're making.

5166:

deletion candidates), it's incrementally improving the article in mainspace as we have done for the last twenty years without any problems. People criticise draftification as a backdoor for deletion because it

979:. If you find yourself marking many articles by the same editor as reviewed, and they've created more than 25 articles, please do nominate them. It's a very helpful tool in keeping the backlog under control. – 5236:

You're right, we do. I forgot the specifics of the current prohibition. So I continue to wonder how much benefit we would reap from a longer waiting time based at least on the small data sample I looked at.

4987:

Now, I know that this query has flaws, in that it doesn't count articles that have been deleted (which would increase the decline count), but I think you might have an improper view of AfC and draft space

5557:

When you feel the article meets Knowledge's general notability guideline, click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page or directly move it to mainspace yourself if you have

5471:

Aside from the obvious, the message implied that AFC review is the only way I could put it back. So a big part of bitey is the wording. I'd hate to see what this atmosphere would do to a new editor.

3069:

by someone experienced in LLM stuff that said that GPTZero is really unreliable. Ever since then I've made sure to tell people that it's unreliable. What do you mean by "reviewer menu list"? Got a link?

2550:

I've done about 30 reviews today for the September drive and plan to keep going; I'm relatively green to NPP. If anyone experienced had a moment, I was wondering if someone could take a quick look at my

5452:

XX The article is only five minutes old. I have many references and am adding them, albeit interrupted by this post. :-) You really need to look closer before you do these things. :-) North8000 (talk)

4952:

hour are the best. I need to reflect/think it over and find novel solutions. Let's let the new editors get a water-break before throwing them into the exciting world of high stakes collaboration. ~ 🦝

3300:

simply remove the proposed merged tag (even if they aren't supposed to) so IMHO it should not be marked as reviewed at that time in order to assure that some disposition will be determined. Sincerely,

2407:

I care nothing for leverage as I care nothing for the article, except that I was patrolling it, and it needs more eyes as some editors are vigorously defending it from being tagged with obvious issues.

667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 4232: 1364:

thing to do. The 'old fashioned' view of notability is that it is a quality of the topic that is discussed at AfD, not something that shapes the content of the article – that comes mainly down to

1105:

or even a policy at at all. That's one reason that I've always said that NPP shouldn't worry about it too much. But that aside, and taking your point that is isn't NPPers job to coach editors, the

4838:

should remain, as waiting 24 hours to review articles would only add to the already excessive backlog. And to end my comment, I'd like to ask someone to send me a link to the NPP discord. Thanks,

1180:

Notability can be a minefield, especially SNGs. I've seen numerous debates at AfD and RfC with widely differing opinions on SNGs. SNGs can themselves be confusing, for example, and relevant here:

2429:

patroller's ability to patrol properly, if you think they are serious. But I think this will work out better for both of you if you spend a bit more time trying to solve this together first. --

2389:

issues with a patroller, it might make sense to bring them up here, but right now what this looks like is an attempt to get some leverage in a content dispute that you've already brought up at

5058:- That has not been my experience so far, anecdotally for me, the number of rejects/decline vastly outnumber the accepts even tho I tend to judge articles purely on the grounds of notability. 4200: 3369:

that will throw the article back in the queue if reverted, and AFD has a bunch of safeguards to make sure the AFD concludes. Therefore I would not recommend marking an article that you add a

5394:

about whether it should be seen as a hard limit or a rule of thumb. The current instructions (I hope) make it clear that the spirit of the rule is more important, because we start by saying

3711:

Thank you for mentioning. That sounds like good behavior. If one has autopatrol, one's redirects should probably not be being marked as unreviewed. Do you agree with that line of thinking? –

1492:

This tension does give rise to various issues, but I'm not sure what can be done about it, apart from more people becoming aware that these two perspectives are both reasonably widely held.

4330: 2496: 1430:

If you would like to run into new editors more often and help them maintain the spark of joy that wikipedia can bring, you might consider signing up as a mentor. Some info on that feature

5776: 4511: 4465: 4429: 4121:

I have also reviewed/edited the page to remove some of the promotional content, eliminate repetition, resolve various citation issues, etc. Article appears to be the work of multiple

1023:. More specifically, in what circumstances do you expect sources establishing notability to be present in an article? And how do you foresee the creator responding to this rationale? 5723:

I noticed in NPP software, if I want to send a message I need to send that first, before marking as reviewed. There is no way to do both simultaneously. Created a Phabricator ticket

5146:

bites new editors, and helps or not. But none of us are perfect, and every reviewer is different, so while we can try to standardize conventions, it will always be a challenge. ~ 🦝

3162:

reliable if they score above, say, 90%. Anything less than that is likely completely inaccurate. Then again, a human familiar with AI would also be able to detect the obvious cases.

1489:(e.g., at AfD and policy discussions) that implicitly or explicitly deny that the "older" view exists or that it continues to be reflected in enwiki policy (which it generally does). 6136: 4233:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=deletedrevisions&drvprop=user%7Ctimestamp%7Ctags%7Csize&drvlimit=max&formatversion=2&titles=Example+article

3565:

If they were already marked as reviewed I think we can trust that the reviewer did their work before hitting the button, so it can be left as is. If you marked them as reviewed

1909:

Honestly, there's a lot of worry about the NPP backlog, and "don't worry about notability" being clearly communicated probably would help cut it really dramatically. Of course,

1604: 4353: 4052:

by adding a new section for Coaching institutes which is not classified category at all. I could use some assistance, as I'm feeling overwhelmed by the number of IDs involved.

5804: 2791: 2849:

ever widely accepted"? Not quite sure where to draw the boundaries on your "that", or if you might mean that draftification in general has always been somewhat disputed. --

2524: 4904:

backdoor to deletion that is inferior to the AFD process, with AFD at least being honest and getting the new user an answer in about a week instead of lingering for months.

754:

This might seem silly, but where is the "Check for copyvio" link on the NPP toolbar? I haven't been doing patrol for a month but that tool seems to be gone now. Thank you!

5251:

In my experience most editors see the article as 'finished' after the initial activity, but some intent to carry on improving the article. Experienced editors may use the

4460:: If there are substantial edits to the duplicate page, you may want to merge the histories together. However, if the duplicate page does not differ from the source page, 4045: 2946:

GPTZero is inaccurate and should not be trusted. However a human who is familiar with LLM can detect it reasonably well with pattern recognition. In general I'd recommend

1083:

The bigger question here is how we educate (generally) newer users about core policies so we don't get into these situations, rather than how patrollers deal with them. --

1694:

There's not a hard line in the sand and it's often a gut feet. I think I'm being kinder by sending to draft space instead of AfD at times, that way people can work on it.

1331:

they should know what notability is and how to add a source to an article. (When they started the article, after all, they got a pop up with many useful tips, including

836:, which normally displays in the toolbar info pane, no longer displays? Perhaps we inadvertently broke it during the vue migration. Maybe an HTML class name changed. Cc 5939:'s "translate page" feature to compare the articles. Most editors, especially newish ones, are simply unaware of the attribution requirement when translating (e.g. see 4646:

Yeah that's fair, I was just trying to find a way to keep people informed but now that I'm a little more awake I guess we already notify editors when we make the move.

4507: 2085:

Can you put a writeup of this problem on Phabricator, given that it happened after a move, I wonder if it is a regression, however, it probably needs further analysis.

2171: 2137: 2119: 2065:

None of which is applicable here. I did think it might be a cache problem, an earlier version not having refs and the tag remaining after refs have been added, but

2787: 2463: 1061:, but that doesn't make him an astronomer or a physicist. His predecessor in the role, Bob Blouin, is a professor in the pharmaceutical division of the department. 969: 162: 4586:

Sounds good. My only run-in was on an article that two minutes old which was draftified 1 minute before I put the references in so I don't have much experience.

4255: 952:

It's no secret that our backlogs have been continuously growing for a while now, seemingly only held off from going completely out of control by backlog drives.

1839: 1667:

I don't personally draftify borderline cases. I may however draftify when there's no verifiable claim to notability. I wouldn't do so for an obvious chance of a

5969:

So for clarification, english pages created with text from translation tools are okay as long as there's appropriate attribution? JW as I came across this page

2062:. I don't know if this is deliberate with the logic that templates only provide supplemental information and its the body of the text that needs to be examined? 1820:

Please don't misunderstand, "NPP doesn't have to systematically check notability" is not a suggestion, it's a description of the current reality. The idea that

5322:

does not meet required standards to get indexed or we're encouraging outright deletion processes where before we'd be allowing something else to happen. Best,

3771: 4548:(24 hours). We have so many articles in the backlog, and retain common sense exceptions. With 10,000 articles in backlog and 13,000 redirects, do we need the 5034:

My problem with draftification is that it is used by some users as a "doesn't meet my standards" button that doesn't require the oversight or due-diligence (

4049: 4089:

thanks. Would it be a concern from an NPP reviewer's perspective if a reviewer who applied the CSD tag also tags it for AfD, or should they avoid doing so?

2772: 5851: 3507:

I think that is overly simplistic. NPP isn't checking something is notable or not; in my experience, merge discussions usually revolve around questions of

2530:

Great seeing we're doing another one. I sadly didn't end up being able to do much work earlier in the year, hope I'll be able to contribure more this time!

2508: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 575: 571: 567: 563: 559: 555: 551: 547: 543: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 499: 495: 491: 487: 483: 479: 475: 471: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 360: 107: 4009:

It might be time to move that conversation to the article talk page or AfD, this is not the right place to discuss the notability of individual articles.

2539: 4231:

For now a non-admin could also compare the size of the page before deletion via the metadata of deleted revisions to see if it's likely identical. E.g.,

2795: 1771: 1597: 1247: 447: 443: 439: 435: 431: 427: 423: 419: 415: 6169: 6144:

The reason why I'm placing this notification here is that the Page Curation tool will need to be updated to utilize the parameters and functionality in

5175:, whereas that would never happen in mainspace because the deletion processes, unlike draftification, are well-defined and subject to regular oversight. 5640: 5162:

This is a false dichotomy. The main alternative to draftspace isn't AfD (because most reviewers use draftify for articles that are somehow lacking but

4545: 3796: 2179: 1050: 767: 4808:

I at least understand, but disagree, with folks who are very against draftifications, I just don't get it though when people have that point of view @

5110:. By draftifying for notability, we're implying to the creator that it could become an article with a bit more work. Unless it is an obvious case of 4830:

Draftification is a non-solution to the much wider problem, at least in my opinion. With that stated, I haven't draftified any article because I see

3197: 2410:

My concern is that a another patroller does not seem to understand WP:OR/WP:SYNTH (which is even more apparent from their interaction with me on the

2145: 2123: 1993: 1129:

Regarding matters of notability for biographical subjects, there are differing schools of thought that are represented on the "Notability (people)" (

947: 4883:

Why would it add to the backlog? It wouldn't impact the number of reviews we're doing, it would just impact what part of the queue we looked at. --

1004: 825: 4344:

the visual editor, but it seems that only articles for creation let's you and then you have to enter into this purgatory? Or is that for everyone?

2448: 709: 336: 5869: 5702: 5620: 749: 6211: 5683: 5606: 4923: 4360: 4345: 1862: 1830: 71: 5005: 4855: 2309: 2291: 2269: 1070:, an article with only one source cannot show that the subject is notable. The purpose of NPP is to ensure new articles meet, as a minimum, the 5921: 5846: 4716:

As mentioned below (since my comment got made into its own section), I do oppose an additional/extended restriction on the front of the queue.

4273: 3147: 333:

For discussions on other matters, such as bugs, etc., please navigate through the tabs, or go to the discussion pages of the relevant policies.

125: 5023: 4946: 4878: 4784: 4766: 4725: 4246: 3691: 3677: 2807: 1815: 1796: 1264: 5936: 5588: 5548: 5531: 5516: 5499: 5207: 4994:

To put it another way, draftification won't prevent an article from being deleted. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I'm trying to say.

4825: 4803: 4752: 3981:? As far as I can see there is only routine coverage based on press releases, social media posts and quotes from those involved in the film. 3085: 2965: 1010: 5886: 4711: 4287: 4226: 4116: 4098: 4080: 4061: 3127: 3107: 2980: 2950:. It is an unreasonable amount of work for a reviewer to fix. Disclaimer: I have not looked at the article and am just speaking generally. – 1842:. For example, many editors have no problem with album articles that mainly consist of track listing, that's why we have so many of them. – 1284: 6111: 5424: 5097: 5050: 4892: 4692: 3741: 3726: 3609: 3591: 3547:

Another question: I just started a few merge discussions for recently reviewed pages. Should they be marked unreviewed or remain reviewed?

3046: 2843: 2659: 2216: 1650: 1181: 990: 919: 794: 342: 143: 23: 4961: 3910: 3896: 3878: 3861: 3755: 3706: 3219: 3060: 2989:

The particular article is full of unsourced puffery. And the lead is full of puffery which is not a summary of the article. I think that

1537: 1518: 1452: 1425: 6229: 6197: 6008: 5903: 4306: 4031: 3258: 3005: 2940: 2925: 2825: 2786:) that might address some of the concerns you have about draftifying an article. It is still very much an accepted practice; the current 2597: 2579: 2552: 1934: 873: 855: 5741: 5376: 5362: 5346: 5331: 5316: 4657: 4641: 4597: 4577: 4527: 4324: 4154: 3394: 2380: 1563: 1501: 5570: 5296: 5281: 5246: 5231: 5071: 4619: 3239: 2740: 2438: 2423: 2402: 2114: 2098: 1524:

either; I just meant that when AfC and NPP were introduced, they imposed a standard that was different from WP:N as it already existed.

1431: 1198: 6075: 6061: 5986: 4450: 4374: 4134: 3289: 2893: 2878: 2858: 2778:

I think the flowchart fails to account for considerations that you may come across during the NPP feed, that are explained further at

2620: 1922: 6105: 6022: 5409: 5337:

it to add to NPP workload in any way, since the idea is that those pages would all be ignored until they crossed the line anyway. --

5190: 4540:

It's exciting to get feedback very quickly, but having an article draftified or even worse deleted could be minimized if we replaced

4495: 4483: 2564: 2192: 2161: 2078: 1878: 1853: 1751: 1623: 1471: 1325: 1175: 1124: 1092: 937: 887: 696: 692: 688: 684: 680: 5770: 4417: 3990: 3957: 3932: 3569:

you opened a merge discussion, you can either do a "full" review and leave them marked as reviewed or place them back in the queue.

3355: 3338: 3311: 1838:, then you're automatically out of the realm of pressing problems that NPP needs to deal with right now and into the murky swamp of 3183: 2014: 1395: 1350: 1305: 5964: 5660: 4383:

as a community of editors making articles about women; there will be folks there happy to answer introductory editing questions. (

3534: 3480: 3449: 5155: 5136: 4428:

This may be the wrong place, but this question came up as part of a new page review and I'm sure someone here knows - I ran into

4185:

is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted.

3560: 3502: 3432: 3021: 2732: 2706: 1438:. Automatically-assigned newbies will get a little interface that makes it easy for them to ask you questions at your talk page. 196: 134: 3843: 3822: 703: 2352: 2069:

has had refs from it's creation. This is not the first time I have come across this but can't see any reason why it happens.--

1552:

we focused heavily on recruiting AfC reviewers rather than say AfD regulars or people who've written a lot of new articles. –

5815: 3784:, I also faced the same issue today. I got to know about the ticket late. Sadly, my article was moved back to the draftspace 2000: 1717: 153: 5115:

encouraging them to work on drafts about non-notable topics. But I recognize this a controversial position among reviewers.

3652: 3523:) or via AfD (esp. for notability concerns), so I don't see this as an area where we need to give very specific guidance. – 2644: 1884: 5367:

Fair enough. I do think increasing it a little more (maybe to 2 hours) would be helpful and cause minimal new problems. --

2520: 1294:

message they get about the draftification, a) how they would know that those are their options and b) which one to pick. –

97: 88: 2507:

You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself

5483: 4792:

because of it. When I send an article for draft as part of NPP I try to offer to help the new editor with their article.

4561: 3746:

Yes I was thinking just the same—sounds like a definite improvement but maybe the tinkering switched off something else.

3095: 2359: 1662:

Some reviewers may not evaluate overall notability, but I always do. With experience comes a bit of comfort in doing so.

6128: 5789: 5396:

take care not to alienate article creators (especially new editors) by patrolling them while they are still in progress

3400: 2863:

No I mean the specific situation described by thebiguglyalien above: that after a thorough search for sources (part of

76: 4278:

I also find that reasoning bizarre, and I'm the one who declined the specifically mentioned G4 in the first place. --

2691: 4236: 2411: 1999:

Okay it seems the issues don't stick to old revisions, so you'll have to trust me it was there. It disappeared after

148: 102: 2250: 2136:

to the page. Both of these articles have recently been moved. Possibly related, the content snippet in the feed for

1543:

the article (quite the opposite). I'm not here to grouch and say that the old ways are automatically better, but it

6179:

This is really not the way to do this. "page curation" is not a gadget that can be updated just like that, it is a

6148: 6132: 5667:

they create an article, then it's tagged the next day, would they be more or less likely to address those concerns?

4395:

that will let you create a draft in a non-AfC way; when it’s ready, you just need to “move” it to main space. (See

3466:

If you determine that the article is notable but that merging is otherwise warranted, mark the article as reviewed.

2066: 1959: 1955: 1586:

determine that GNG sources do not exist anywhere in the world before declining, draftifying or AFD'ing an article?

4440:

to make way for a move, and I reverted that, hoping to preserve the edit history in case of any future SPI cases.

2670:

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea for Page Curation to list "Uncategorized" under "Possible issues"?

2488:

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

1913:

unsuitable articles or ones that are at the "well, I can't quite A7 it, but..." level are still NPP's problem. --

4469: 4437: 4433: 3193: 2516: 1902: 833: 674: 17: 5463:

That's what draft space and user space are for. (Article space is for articles, not for half-formed articles. XX

4125:- one account started on 4 September, and six more started on 8 September - now bludgeoning the AfD discussion. 1078:

which gives advice on most issues that come to light during NPP, or the Village Pump where advice can be sought.

1982:

under the heading "references" – completely standard. Can anybody figure out what's going on? Is this a bug? –

1777:

Well great news, you don't have to. No on-wiki guideline ever said that you did. And you can delete things for

1460:

shouldn't be a separate article. And when you do find them, they are what to build an article from. Sincerely,

1291: 1253:

Let's say the creator goes with #1. How, specifically, should they include these two sources in the article? –

5940: 3112:

Ah you're right. I'd forgotten about that. Maybe I should remove it to discourage people from using it. Hmm. –

2798:

also tracks the articles that have been moved, if you wanted to get a sense of what other editors are moving.

2031:

within the text. It generates the 'No citations' tag in articles with refs using the short footnotes template

5679: 5602: 5085: 4039: 3266: 3188:

Play with chatgpt and some other llms for a while and the writing style will stand out to you like a beacon.

2930:

This is for sections after the "Batik shirts as formal and informal attire" section header, i.e. inclusive.

1230: 5088:. I use that page to find and revert draftifications of pages that were older than 90 days when draftified. 1954:

Page Curation lists "No citations - This page does not cite any sources" as one of the possible issues with

6094: 5997: 4743:

not forcing them to rush into learning how Knowledge works in under a week to save what they've worked on.

4423: 4363:: Yes, you can publish articles without them needing to be approved, as long as they follow our standards. 3788:. Still, if it could be of any help as reference please expedite the ticket. Thanks for your consideration 3605: 3556: 3498: 3476: 3428: 3334: 3285: 2609: 2335: 1365: 629: 119: 5634: 5216: 2023:

I assume this is generated by a search of the article's unparsed text looking for, or rather the lack of,

1113:

themselves, how is an editor expected to improve an article that lacks sources establishing notability? –

5824:

also made a good-looking script in the section you mention to help spot those errors in the first place.

5265: 4671: 4516: 2905: 2233:

Hi, what do I gotta do to become a member of the community? I'm eager to join and help with the backlog.

1713: 781: 739: 189: 4103:

No worries at all. If the CSD tag was removed or declined, the same reviewer can nominate it for AfD. –

1869:

It would be a good read for anyone who is new to NPP (and, for that matter, the old-guard too). Cheers,

6034: 5917: 5837: 4022: 3818: 3582: 3189: 2457: 1791: 1259: 1020: 1000: 816: 66: 38: 6154:

per the request. Maintainers of the Page Curation tool are advised to participate in this discussion.

4235:. Just change the last part of the url, &titles=, to be for the appropriate title. (Got this from 4067:

I've removed some non-encyclopedic material. Given the current content, I wouldn't tag it with G11. –

960:

user right. Please let us know here, privately, or elsewhere, if you'd be interested in volunteering.

5783: 5611:

I think this wording is clearer that what Shug wrote but I agree that we can remove the "please". --

5584: 5527: 5495: 5420: 5093: 5001: 4821: 4780: 4748: 4721: 3892: 3857: 3454:

Thanks. That concern makes sense and I'm open to rephrasing. Perhaps something like: If you create a

2766: 2305: 2265: 2041:

and in articles with a general references section but no inline references, neither of which contain

1027: 965: 786: 2697:

This already exists but the text is "No categories - This page does not belong to any categories." -

2300:

and getting familiar with tagging and marking as reviewed in an area you're already comfortable in.

6071: 5982: 5974: 5818:

script, which helps with the cleanup work and warns the page creator on their talk page when used.

5672: 5595: 5010:

I'll note also that articles can get declined multiple times, but can only be accepted or rejected

3132:

I decided to remove the GPTZero link from my user script. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. –

2339: 1417: 6180: 1015:

I'd like to understand better what reviewers mean when they move an article to draftspace because

5864: 4918: 4873: 4687: 4436:, a page previously protected due to edit warring. Another editor recently requested deletion of 4396: 4336: 4268: 4221: 4149: 3721: 3672: 3389: 3142: 3122: 3080: 3036:

That editor tagged another article earlier and removed a section. He seemed to have expert eye.

2960: 2545: 2211: 1645: 1075: 957: 850: 722: 5221:

there is no evidence of active improvement (at least one hour since the last constructive edit)

4524: 4243: 4094: 4057: 3751: 3687: 3648: 2746: 2130: 2103:

I can't provide a reproducible example but I can copy the above to phabricator, if it helps? –

2056: 1630:

I think an article can be notable without containing the sources in the article. It is part of

1612:, which does not require establishing that "GNG sources do not exist anywhere in the world". – 1533: 1497: 1435: 182: 4816:

delete over draftification in most cases, so why not at least give peopel a chance, you know?

4604:

This seems like a kind way to address new editors and new articles, I think it's a good idea @

1109:

is supposed to be to allow space for their improvement. Assuming they can find resources like

302: 6191: 5913: 5827: 5544: 5512: 5479: 5065: 4593: 4111: 4075: 4012: 3572: 3351: 3307: 3235: 3001: 2655: 2640: 2593: 2560: 2535: 2374: 2092: 1898: 1786: 1767: 1593: 1514: 1485:

sourcing (though sometimes, as with biographies of living people, sources should be present).

1467: 1321: 1254: 1243: 1163: 996: 907: 806: 6018: 5900: 5883: 5801: 5698: 5616: 5580: 5523: 5491: 5416: 5372: 5342: 5312: 5255: 5171:(i.e. not will) via G13 lead to an article being deleted for reasons that aren't listed in 5089: 5019: 4997: 4888: 4817: 4776: 4762: 4744: 4717: 4707: 4637: 4573: 4302: 4283: 4196: 3888: 3867: 3853: 3512: 3215: 3103: 3056: 2976: 2889: 2854: 2821: 2803: 2751: 2434: 2398: 2301: 2261: 1918: 1890: 1726: 1709: 1705: 1402: 1314:

of the GNG sources is the important thing under #1 and any of the many ways would be fine.

1031: 961: 899: 325:

to discuss the process with each other and to ask for and provide help to fellow reviewers.

57: 4254:

Sorry, looks like I was wrong about this. It was held against the candidate in the RFA at

3515:

rather than notability. As Novem says, most NPP merges are done boldly (also supported by

3066: 8: 6225: 6165: 6067: 5978: 5737: 5724: 5713: 5656: 5566: 5490:"experienced editor" clearly misunderstood that articles can be worked on in main space. 5358: 5327: 5292: 5277: 5242: 5227: 5203: 5172: 5151: 4957: 4812:. It's a place to work on things so they're not outright deleted. The alternative at AfD 4800: 4654: 4616: 4557: 4480: 4371: 4320: 3986: 3928: 3915:

On a side note, I have to agree with the original reviewer that the article doesn't meet

3737: 3702: 3630: 3516: 3455: 3414: 3272: 2702: 2575: 2319: 2197:

Thanks for these examples. I was able to reproduce on testwiki. Confirmed bug, will fix.

2188: 2167: 2157: 2074: 1945: 1874: 1811: 1778: 1676: 1407: 1224: 1194: 1171: 1159: 1088: 915: 883: 2570:

I looked at 4-5 of your reviews at random. They seemed fine to me. Continue reviewing. -

5855: 5107: 4909: 4864: 4698: 4678: 4632:

anxiety to new editors, not less. If we're going to draftify, we should just do it. --

4349: 4259: 4212: 4140: 3781: 3712: 3663: 3404: 3380: 3133: 3113: 3091: 3071: 3030: 2951: 2779: 2419: 2348: 2257: 2202: 1782: 1733: 1636: 1381: 1130: 903: 841: 294: 5404: 5213:

Perhaps a better rule would be at least 1 hour since the most recent substantive edit

5185: 5111: 4989: 4930: 4839: 4835: 4549: 4541: 4534: 4521: 4490: 4445: 4413: 4240: 4090: 4053: 3777: 3747: 3683: 3644: 3529: 3444: 3207: 2873: 2838: 2794:, that might even give you a sense for how often things are draftified. The category 2783: 2491:

Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.

2362: 2297: 2275: 2234: 2109: 2009: 1988: 1962:. I can understand that it might miss references cited in unusual ways, but this has 1848: 1821: 1746: 1618: 1558: 1529: 1493: 1448: 1390: 1346: 1300: 1280: 1214:

Establish meeting GNG. Include at least two independent published sources that cover

1210:

Here's (IMO) practical advice for articles like the example. Do one of these three:

1119: 1045: 985: 930: 878:

Yeah, its broken, probably from the rewrite in Vue - I'll add this to my todo list --

866: 760: 4552:? I never noticed this, because I tend to review older articles first anyways. ~ 🦝 373: 6204: 6185: 6124: 6113: 6090: 5993: 5970: 5766: 5059: 5035: 4863:. You can also find the link at the top of this talk page, in one of the banners. – 4392: 4130: 4104: 4086: 4068: 3974: 3601: 3552: 3494: 3472: 3424: 3330: 3281: 3251: 3203: 3039: 2933: 2918: 2864: 2665: 2651: 2636: 2605: 2589: 2556: 2531: 2367: 2327: 2320: 2086: 1976: 1825: 1684: 1631: 1609: 1377: 1373: 1310:

I was just giving a suggested way to navigate the complex situation. I think that

1155: 976: 5891:

If I could make a suggestion, a "dismiss" button after it pops up would be great.

5792:

and I think that it's incredibly useful advice that should have a wider audience.

5758: 4391:

page. If you want time to edit incrementally before publishing, there is a box at

4208: 4169:

Is there a reliable way for non-admin patrollers to view articles deleted via AfD?

3659: 2631:

Hi, in case it hasn't already been mentioned, the Refill tool can now be found at

2485:

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.

2198: 6014: 5909: 5892: 5875: 5793: 5694: 5612: 5368: 5338: 5308: 5015: 4884: 4772: 4758: 4735: 4703: 4633: 4569: 4568:

their work seems harmless to me. Is there anything critical I'm missing here? --

4461: 4380: 4298: 4279: 4192: 3211: 3099: 3052: 2972: 2885: 2850: 2817: 2799: 2430: 2394: 2175: 1914: 1680: 1139: 1106: 1102: 1071: 278: 266: 4444:

suitable for an article, but I don't know the source matter well enough to say.

4337:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Judith_J._Warren_(Nursing_Informatics_Specialist)

3438:(ideally, every article should only be reviewed once). I'll try and rephrase. – 6215: 6176: 6155: 5752: 5733: 5652: 5575: 5562: 5354: 5323: 5288: 5273: 5238: 5223: 5199: 5147: 4953: 4901: 4809: 4794: 4648: 4610: 4605: 4553: 4473: 4364: 4316: 4177: 3982: 3938: 3924: 3832: 3814: 3733: 3698: 3408: 3373: 3366: 3094:, isn't this link from your userscript? I thought I had that button because of 2698: 2626: 2585: 2571: 2482:

On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.

2390: 2184: 2153: 2070: 1894: 1870: 1807: 1672: 1668: 1369: 1190: 1167: 1084: 995:

Is there a special requirement as to who can volunteer to nominate and invite?

911: 879: 837: 803:, which adds a bunch of useful links in addition to this tool in a drop-down. 718: 6056: 5959: 5131: 4739: 4533: 4384: 4122: 3978: 3970: 3946: 3942: 3920: 3916: 3902:

through UDEL and the above said tag will be eliminated automatically. Thanks

3640: 3619: 3508: 3417:

instead of merging the article directly, do not mark the article as reviewed.

3322: 3178: 2990: 2947: 2782:, particularly the section "§ Reasons not to move an article to draftspace" ( 2727: 2686: 2415: 2344: 1966: 1835: 1824:

is relatively new; anecdotally I started hearing it 5-6 years ago (I suspect

1332: 1151: 1147: 1110: 975:

Also worth noting that anybody can nominate another editor for this right at

780:

Not sure if there was a dedicated NPP copyvio tool, though I have been using

402: 341:, such as for example - but not only - Backlog Drives, etc., please post at 5353:

1 hour <24 hour period and what I did was far too limited to have value.

2122:

is currently showing in the queue as having no citations but is referenced.

5977:

and the text for the english article matches the google translate version.

5399: 5180: 5077: 5043: 4457: 4404: 3785: 3625: 3524: 3486: 3439: 3318: 2910:

What is the process for articles that haven AI/LLM generated. This article

2868: 2833: 2365:

is pretty clear that you need to explain your tagging which you never did.

2331: 2104: 2035: 2004: 1983: 1940: 1843: 1741: 1675:

pass, but I'd be much more likely to do it for something that doesn't meet

1657: 1613: 1553: 1439: 1385: 1337: 1295: 1271: 1114: 1040: 980: 925: 895: 861: 775: 755: 1229:

Establish in the article or sources that he meets the special criteria in

1223:

Establish in the article or sources that he meets the special criteria in

800: 6099: 6002: 5762: 5709: 4970: 4379:

Thanks for your work on Knowledge’s gender gap! You may be interested in

4335:

I created a bio article for Judith J. Warren, Nursing Infomatics pioneer

4126: 3964: 3950: 3903: 3884: 3871: 3849: 3836: 3804: 3789: 3639:

Hi all. Just created a new entry for the first time in a little while at

3597: 3548: 3490: 3468: 3420: 3326: 3277: 3051:

No automated tools can be fully trusted to ID AI text, unfortunately. --

2911: 2614: 2414:), but then templates their fellow patroller to gain their own leverage. 2126:

was showing as having no citations but the tag disappeared after I added

5307:

I'm not sure what this would make harder about NPP, can you explain? --

4860: 2750:

heavily discouraged. Does the flowchart still reflect current practice?

1883:

PS: Strike part of the above: it is already linked at the bottom of the

724: 328: 6184:

Phabricator task is resolved, you can then consider reopening the TfD.

5693:

seeing those folks, given that I'm noticing them from the AfC side. --

4191:. My question is, is there a better way to do this type of patrolling? 2790:

has a method to account for it in points, see the column "Draftify" in

241: 5014:. The data will look heavier tilted towards declines as a result. -- 3828: 3810: 3158:

This article was clearly written by AI, in my opinion. Detectors are

2812:

I see I've skimmed over the specifics of your question in regards to

2338:. What was more concerning, is that they left a note on my talk page 1336:

draftified and not understanding what they need to do to address it?

225: 3010:

This page was originally a redirect so I'm going to revert to that.

6042: 5945: 5811: 5117: 4624:

I don't think the tag is a good idea - imo, that would mean giving

4252:

If you have a lot of declined G4s, nobody will hold it against you.

3164: 3012: 2713: 2672: 2183:

Phabricator so perhaps somebody else could add it there. Thanks. --

720: 5398:

and only after that suggest one hour as a minimum grace period. –

4508:

Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/NormalguyfromUK#20 August 2024

4331:

Help with reviewing new page for female scientist Judith J. Warren

391: 3419:

Feel free to revert me if you think this needs more discussion.

3276:

templates cannot be removed until the discussion is closed out.

368: 361:

Top New Page Reviewers database report (updated by bot 2x daily)

5820: 5777:

Checking for copyright violations and unattributed translations

4734:

I think switching to waiting until 24 hours would lead to more

3596:

They were marked as reviewed by others, so I'll leave them be.

2470: 5943:

from a few days ago), so it's important to leave them a note.

3521:

Articles that are young or short should be merged immediately

3210:. Some helpful resources, lists of common AI phrases, etc. -- 2555:

and let me know if I'm on the right track with my patrolling.

1068:

significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources

725: 6013:

I didn't know about that template - thanks for making it. --

4967:

Understandably, nearly every AFC nomination is turned down...

3941:, I disagree with you as well. I believe it satisfy both the 2228: 5505:

just someone who is active at doing this type of thing.

4312: 4256:

Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Significa liberdade#Oppose

3459:

on the grounds that the article to be merged is not notable

5042:

their more stringent standards for both these processes.

2150:

REDIRECT 2023 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council elections

377:

NPP unreviewed article statistics as of September 23, 2024

257: 1189:

So a provost may or may not be notable under the SNG. --

1182:

Knowledge:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes

249: 5810:

On the topic of translation copyvios, allow me to plug

4311:

You may be able to see a copy of a deleted page at the

3321:

or someone will close the discussion if it's listed at

2052:

It also seems to ignore refs within a template such as

5639:

I would urge the discussion above to focus on whether

5106:

It is, to a certain extent. If a topic isn't notable,

3658:

Seems like this might be a PageTriage bug. I've filed

5555:

My suggested updated wording would be something like

4050:

List of institutions of higher education in Rajasthan

5852:

User:Vanderwaalforces/checkTranslationAttribution.js

4468:(with period) can be safely deleted under A10, then 3809:

you know you can just move the article back, right?

2632: 1030:

for example, recently draftified for this reason by

396: 2796:

Category:Content moved from mainspace to draftspace

784:

to add a "copyvio check" link to my main toolbar. /

327:

Discussion also takes place on our Discord server (

6135:. You are invited to comment on the discussion at 3969:How is the production of the film notable to meet 3271:Should we mark articles as reviewed if we begin a 6141:on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 4971:quarry query for the month-to-date numbers at AfC 4757:Wait, why would it mean more articles at AfD? -- 4738:behaviour, in the form of articles being sent to 2832:I don't think that was ever accepted practice. – 2146:2023 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council elections 2124:2023 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council elections 213: 5788:spent a lot of time typing up their approach to 4258:. Although ideally I don't think it should be. – 1059:chair of the department of physics and astronomy 233: 6212:Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Holding cell 4432:which was an obvious recreation of content at 2180:Al-Jazira Front (Anglo-Turkish War, 1918–1923) 1867:someplace where it could be more easily found? 948:Seeking additional NPP recruitment coordinator 5056:I approve like 50% of AfC articles I look at. 2449:New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive 1017:it needs more sources to establish notability 733:This page has archives. Sections older than 190: 2330:with patrolling rights removed a concern of 1019:– one of the canned reasons provided by the 384: 335:For discussion on topics purely relevant to 3772:Another draft that didn't get autopatrolled 1481:need not necessarily be present in initial 1142:(sticking with the example above) would be 799:Another option, which I prefer and use, is 2358:I am not the only person who reverted you. 1011:Needs more sources to establish notability 197: 183: 6030:Translate, so what I'd do is tag it with 5108:no amount of editing is going to fix that 1146:to be notable and is very likely to meet 389: 5973:and noticed it has a corresponding page 4514:(with .) being a sock of the creator of 2393:and raised on the article talk page. -- 2334:that I added to an unpatrolled article, 372: 5217:Knowledge:Drafts#During new page review 4139:At AFD now, and all accounts blocked. – 3464:, do not mark the article as reviewed. 3462:instead of merging the article directly 2814:"fewer than two GNG-confirming sources" 2741:Flowchart recommendation on draftifying 1736:or anywhere else as far as I can tell). 743:when more than 20 sections are present. 14: 6040:after adding appropriate attribution. 4969:– That's just not true. I ran a quick 1384:). That seems like a problem to me. – 704:Knowledge:New pages patrol/Noticeboard 382: 4861:https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu 3682:Ah super, thank you for filing that! 3403:regarding proposed mergers per what @ 2274:Thanks, I'll try the tools tomorrow. 349: 310: 32: 5992:expectations around translation.. ( 3096:User:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/NPPLinks 1840:articles to maybe AfD at some point 1366:WP:NPOV#What to include and exclude 216: 30: 4628:work to NPP, not less, and giving 3973:? Which sources do you think give 2469: 1863:Seven tips for new page patrolling 31: 6243: 4834:need for it. I also believe that 4237:User:SD0001/deleted-metadata-link 737:may be automatically archived by 6133:Template:Redirect for discussion 6119: 4512:First combat operations of FASH. 4504:in case of any future SPI cases. 4466:First combat operations of FASH. 4464:may apply. In this case I think 4430:First combat operations of FASH. 2633:https://refill.toolforge.org/ng/ 2142:REDIRECT Pavel Romanov (drummer) 2067:Nakadomari (archaeological site) 1960:Nakadomari (archaeological site) 750:Where's the "Check for copyvio"? 401: 390: 383: 353: 314: 277: 265: 6066:got it, thanks CFA and buidhe! 4517:First combat operations of FASH 4470:First combat operations of FASH 4438:First combat operations of FASH 4434:First combat operations of FASH 1107:purpose of draftifying articles 1066:As notability is determined by 834:User:DannyS712/copyvio-check.js 675:Knowledge talk:New pages patrol 18:Knowledge talk:New pages patrol 6230:15:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 6198:23:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 6170:22:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 6106:02:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6076:23:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6062:20:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6023:21:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6009:19:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 5987:18:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 5965:21:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5922:23:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5904:23:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5887:20:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5870:20:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5847:20:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5805:19:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5771:20:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5742:08:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 5703:19:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5684:18:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5661:23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5621:18:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5607:18:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 5589:15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5571:15:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5549:15:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5532:15:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5517:15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5500:14:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5484:14:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5425:12:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5410:09:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5377:19:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5363:17:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5347:16:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5332:08:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5317:22:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5297:08:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5282:08:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5247:21:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5232:20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5215:Don't we already have that in 5208:16:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5191:09:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5156:13:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5137:00:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5098:13:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5072:12:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5051:11:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5024:22:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5006:13:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 4962:21:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4947:21:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4924:20:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4893:21:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4879:20:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4856:20:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4826:18:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4804:18:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4785:18:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4767:17:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4753:17:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4726:15:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 4712:17:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4693:17:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4658:17:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4642:16:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4620:16:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4598:16:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4578:16:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4562:16:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4528:16:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 4496:16:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 4484:16:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 4451:15:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 4418:05:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 4375:03:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 4354:21:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4325:19:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4307:17:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4288:18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4274:17:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4247:17:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4227:16:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4201:13:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4155:16:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4032:18:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 3991:07:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 3958:01:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 3933:19:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 3911:17:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 3897:17:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 3879:17:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 3862:17:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 3844:17:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 3823:16:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 3797:14:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2711:Really? I've never seen that. 2340:User talk:Aszx5000#August 2024 1935:Bug with "no citations" issue? 1859:Is there any reason not to put 1785:, regardless of notability. – 13: 1: 5086:User:SDZeroBot/Draftify Watch 4387:is also a good place to ask.) 4135:15:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4117:10:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4099:10:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4081:10:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4062:10:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4044:During a routine NPP task at 3756:21:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3742:20:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3727:11:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3707:09:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3692:07:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3678:07:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3653:07:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3610:19:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3592:18:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3561:18:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3535:14:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3503:14:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3481:14:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3450:14:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3433:13:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3395:07:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3365:merge immediately involves a 3356:13:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3339:00:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3312:00:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3290:00:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 3259:21:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3240:14:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3220:19:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3198:13:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3184:13:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3148:22:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3128:19:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3108:19:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3086:09:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3061:09:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3047:09:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3022:22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 3006:20:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2981:23:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2966:19:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2941:19:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2926:19:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2894:22:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2879:22:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2859:21:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2844:21:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2826:22:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2808:20:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2773:19:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2733:14:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2707:06:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2692:21:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 2660:12:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2645:18:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 2621:16:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2598:16:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 2580:12:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 2565:07:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 2256:Typically you would apply at 1972:templates in footnotes and a 1605:not to worry about notability 1231:Knowledge:Notability (people) 4506:" Or current SPI cases. See 3317:closer will be requested at 2464:September 2024 Backlog Drive 2336:Political marriages in India 1528:entirely wrong about that). 1101:Notability actually isn't a 630:Knowledge talk:Page Curation 24:Knowledge talk:Page Curation 7: 2540:17:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2525:17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2494:Interested in taking part? 2439:20:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2424:20:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2403:16:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2381:10:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2353:09:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1162:#5, 6, etc.; or just plain 782:User:The Earwig/copyvios.js 10: 6248: 5937:Google Translate extension 4046:Gurukripa Career Institute 4040:Gurukripa Career Institute 3623: 3456:proposed merger discussion 3415:proposed merger discussion 3267:Proposed merge discussions 3206:, I should also recommend 2517:MediaWiki message delivery 2310:17:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 2292:16:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 2270:16:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 2251:16:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 1938: 938:19:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 292: 6112:Nomination for merger of 4510:regarding the creator of 4424:Question about histmerges 4189:"substantially identical" 3662:. Thanks for reporting. – 2604:Thanks for reviewing :) ( 2506: 2468: 2296:I recommend checking out 2217:08:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 2193:08:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 2162:07:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 2115:22:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2099:08:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2079:20:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC) 2015:08:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC) 1994:08:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC) 1923:18:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 1879:13:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 1854:10:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 1816:09:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 1797:07:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 1772:23:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 1752:08:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 1651:22:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 1624:21:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 1598:21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 1564:20:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 1538:20:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 1519:20:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 1502:17:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 1472:16:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 1453:01:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 1426:13:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 1396:08:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 1351:17:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC) 1326:13:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC) 1306:07:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC) 1285:06:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC) 1265:05:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC) 1248:18:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 1199:20:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 1176:10:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 1125:07:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC) 1093:23:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC) 1051:15:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC) 1028:Draft:Christopher Clemens 1005:08:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 991:15:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC) 970:18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC) 920:00:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 888:02:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC) 874:03:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC) 856:20:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 826:03:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 795:01:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 768:00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 5975:es:Cuevas_del_Conventico 2906:AI/LLM generated article 6149:Redirect for discussion 5390:sounds more reasonable. 4397:Help:How to move a page 2172:Dan Phillips (musician) 2138:Pavel Romanov (drummer) 2120:Pavel Romanov (drummer) 1158:#1, 2, and possibly 3; 1076:Help:Your first article 163:September backlog drive 5874:I've installed it. :) 2747:File:NPP flowchart.svg 2474: 1436:Special:EnrollAsMentor 910:should be fixed now -- 740:Lowercase sigmabot III 378: 6129:nominated for merging 3485:I like your wording @ 3379:tag to as reviewed. – 3190:ScottishFinnishRadish 2473: 1861:Your excellent essay 1822:notability is our job 1072:core content policies 376: 6138:the template's entry 5816:AttributeTranslation 5784:GreenLipstickLesbian 5673:Significa liberdade 5596:Significa liberdade 2546:Safety check request 2152:prior to my edit. -- 2144:and the snippet for 860:I think this is it. 832:Are you saying that 5635:Some considerations 2168:No. 29 Squadron PAF 1610:usual due diligence 1603:The alternative is 1103:core content policy 6181:deployed extension 5266:under construction 4672:Under construction 2475: 1831:pragmatic approach 379: 338:coordination tasks 323:New Page Reviewers 6035:rough translation 5868: 5845: 5676: 5599: 5408: 5189: 4922: 4877: 4691: 4410: 4272: 4225: 4153: 4030: 3725: 3676: 3590: 3533: 3448: 3393: 3146: 3126: 3084: 2964: 2877: 2842: 2745:The flowchart at 2650:thanks for post-- 2588:, appreciate it! 2514: 2513: 2215: 2113: 2013: 1992: 1906: 1893:comment added by 1852: 1795: 1750: 1721: 1708:comment added by 1649: 1622: 1562: 1445: 1394: 1343: 1304: 1277: 1263: 1123: 1049: 989: 854: 824: 747: 746: 366: 365: 348: 347: 343:Coordination Talk 321:This page is for 286:redirects backlog 174: 173: 168: 128: 113: 82: 22:(Redirected from 6239: 6222: 6208: 6194: 6162: 6153: 6147: 6125:Template:Rfd-NPF 6123: 6122: 6114:Template:Rfd-NPF 6102: 6060: 6059: 6053: 6052: 6049: 6046: 6039: 6033: 6005: 5971:Conventico Caves 5963: 5962: 5956: 5955: 5952: 5949: 5914:Vanderwaalforces 5898: 5895: 5881: 5878: 5862: 5860: 5842: 5835: 5834: 5832: 5830:TechnoSquirrel69 5823: 5821:Vanderwaalforces 5799: 5796: 5787: 5756: 5674: 5597: 5559: 5402: 5270: 5264: 5260: 5254: 5183: 5135: 5134: 5128: 5127: 5124: 5121: 5068: 5048: 4944: 4937: 4916: 4914: 4871: 4869: 4853: 4846: 4797: 4685: 4683: 4676: 4670: 4651: 4613: 4519: 4493: 4478: 4448: 4408: 4407: 4393:Knowledge:Drafts 4369: 4313:Internet Archive 4266: 4264: 4219: 4217: 4186: 4182: 4176: 4147: 4145: 4027: 4020: 4019: 4017: 4015:TechnoSquirrel69 3968: 3808: 3719: 3717: 3670: 3668: 3635: 3633: 3587: 3580: 3579: 3577: 3575:TechnoSquirrel69 3527: 3442: 3413:If you create a 3387: 3385: 3378: 3372: 3256: 3254: 3182: 3181: 3175: 3174: 3171: 3168: 3140: 3138: 3120: 3118: 3078: 3076: 3044: 3042: 3034: 3020: 2958: 2956: 2938: 2936: 2923: 2921: 2871: 2836: 2769: 2763: 2760: 2757: 2754: 2731: 2730: 2724: 2723: 2720: 2717: 2690: 2689: 2683: 2682: 2679: 2676: 2617: 2466: 2458:New pages patrol 2453: 2452: 2379: 2370: 2328:User:Ratnahastin 2321:User:Ratnahastin 2289: 2282: 2248: 2241: 2209: 2207: 2135: 2129: 2107: 2095: 2061: 2055: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2007: 1986: 1981: 1975: 1971: 1965: 1950: 1948: 1888: 1846: 1789: 1744: 1730: 1703: 1661: 1643: 1641: 1616: 1556: 1443: 1442: 1422: 1414: 1411:~WikiOriginal-9~ 1388: 1341: 1340: 1298: 1275: 1274: 1257: 1117: 1043: 997:Vanderwaalforces 983: 935: 934: 928: 908:TechnoSquirrel69 871: 870: 864: 848: 846: 821: 814: 813: 811: 809:TechnoSquirrel69 790: 779: 765: 764: 758: 742: 726: 405: 397: 394: 387: 357: 356: 350: 318: 317: 311: 305: 281: 274:articles backlog 269: 255:Redirect reviews 218: 215: 199: 192: 185: 139: 124: 93: 62: 33: 27: 6247: 6246: 6242: 6241: 6240: 6238: 6237: 6236: 6216: 6202: 6192: 6156: 6151: 6145: 6120: 6117: 6100: 6055: 6050: 6047: 6044: 6043: 6041: 6037: 6031: 6003: 5958: 5953: 5950: 5947: 5946: 5944: 5896: 5893: 5879: 5876: 5856: 5838: 5828: 5825: 5819: 5797: 5794: 5781: 5779: 5750: 5637: 5581:Hey man im josh 5556: 5524:Hey man im josh 5492:Hey man im josh 5417:Hey man im josh 5268: 5262: 5258: 5252: 5130: 5125: 5122: 5119: 5118: 5116: 5090:Hey man im josh 5066: 5044: 4998:Hey man im josh 4979:Declines: 2,893 4938: 4931: 4910: 4865: 4847: 4840: 4818:Hey man im josh 4795: 4777:Hey man im josh 4745:Hey man im josh 4718:Hey man im josh 4679: 4677:tags instead? – 4674: 4668: 4649: 4611: 4538: 4515: 4491: 4474: 4446: 4426: 4405: 4365: 4333: 4260: 4213: 4184: 4180: 4174: 4171: 4141: 4042: 4023: 4013: 4010: 3962: 3889:Hey man im josh 3868:Hey man im josh 3854:Hey man im josh 3833:Deletion review 3802: 3774: 3713: 3664: 3637: 3631: 3629: 3622: 3583: 3573: 3570: 3467: 3460: 3381: 3376: 3370: 3269: 3252: 3250: 3177: 3172: 3169: 3166: 3165: 3163: 3134: 3114: 3072: 3040: 3038: 3028: 3011: 2952: 2934: 2932: 2919: 2917: 2908: 2767: 2761: 2758: 2755: 2752: 2743: 2726: 2721: 2718: 2715: 2714: 2712: 2685: 2680: 2677: 2674: 2673: 2671: 2668: 2629: 2615: 2548: 2462: 2451: 2368: 2366: 2324: 2302:Hey man im josh 2283: 2276: 2262:Hey man im josh 2242: 2235: 2231: 2203: 2176:Kampong Ku F.C. 2133: 2127: 2093: 2059: 2053: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2032: 2028: 2024: 1979: 1973: 1969: 1963: 1952: 1946: 1944: 1937: 1783:being an advert 1727:Hey man im josh 1724: 1710:Hey man im josh 1655: 1637: 1440: 1418: 1408: 1338: 1272: 1140:UNC Chapel Hill 1032:Hey man im josh 1021:draftify script 1013: 962:Hey man im josh 950: 932: 931: 926: 924:Thank you sir! 900:ComplexRational 868: 867: 862: 842: 817: 807: 804: 793: 788: 773: 762: 761: 756: 752: 738: 727: 721: 712: 699: 670: 410: 395: 388: 371: 354: 315: 309: 308: 301: 297: 291: 290: 289: 262: 260: 252: 247:Article reviews 244: 239:Oldest redirect 236: 228: 220: 204: 203: 167: 158: 112: 81: 29: 28: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 6245: 6235: 6234: 6233: 6232: 6116: 6110: 6109: 6108: 6085: 6084: 6083: 6082: 6081: 6080: 6079: 6078: 6068:Eucalyptusmint 6027: 6026: 6025: 5979:Eucalyptusmint 5932: 5931: 5930: 5929: 5928: 5927: 5926: 5925: 5924: 5778: 5775: 5774: 5773: 5748: 5747: 5746: 5745: 5744: 5730: 5729: 5728: 5721: 5668: 5636: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5630: 5629: 5628: 5627: 5626: 5625: 5624: 5623: 5591: 5553: 5552: 5551: 5469: 5468: 5467: 5466: 5465: 5464: 5456: 5455: 5454: 5453: 5447: 5446: 5436: 5434: 5433: 5432: 5431: 5430: 5429: 5428: 5427: 5391: 5387: 5386: 5385: 5384: 5383: 5382: 5381: 5380: 5379: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5301: 5300: 5299: 5195: 5194: 5193: 5176: 5160: 5159: 5158: 5143: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5100: 5081: 5074: 5039: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5027: 5026: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4980: 4977: 4964: 4905: 4897: 4896: 4895: 4881: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4581: 4580: 4537: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4425: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4400: 4388: 4377: 4332: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4309: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4249: 4170: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4041: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3835:route. Thanks 3773: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3636: 3628: 3621: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3568: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3513:needed context 3465: 3458: 3397: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3273:proposed merge 3268: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3200: 3186: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3063: 3026: 3025: 3024: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2907: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2742: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2667: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2628: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2547: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2512: 2511: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2492: 2489: 2486: 2483: 2477: 2476: 2467: 2450: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2408: 2383: 2323: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2230: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2164: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2063: 2050: 2018: 2017: 1951: 1943: 1936: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1907: 1881: 1800: 1799: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1737: 1699: 1695: 1692: 1688: 1664: 1663: 1653: 1627: 1626: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1549: 1525: 1490: 1486: 1474: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1361: 1328: 1292:rather concise 1234: 1233: 1227: 1221: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1164:WP:COMMONSENSE 1099: 1080: 1079: 1063: 1062: 1012: 1009: 1008: 1007: 993: 949: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 892: 891: 890: 830: 829: 828: 785: 751: 748: 745: 744: 732: 729: 728: 723: 719: 717: 714: 713: 708: 701: 700: 679: 672: 671: 634: 627: 626: 623: 622: 614: 574: 534: 494: 454: 412: 411: 406: 400: 370: 367: 364: 363: 358: 346: 345: 334: 332: 326: 319: 307: 306: 298: 293: 288: 287: 275: 261: 259: 256: 253: 251: 248: 245: 243: 240: 237: 235: 232: 229: 227: 224: 223:Oldest article 221: 219: 211: 208: 206: 205: 202: 201: 194: 187: 179: 177: 176: 175: 172: 171: 169: 166: 165: 159: 157: 156: 151: 146: 140: 138: 131: 129: 123: 116: 114: 111: 110: 105: 100: 94: 92: 85: 83: 80: 79: 74: 69: 63: 61: 54: 52: 45: 43: 36: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6244: 6231: 6227: 6223: 6221: 6220: 6213: 6206: 6201: 6200: 6199: 6195: 6189: 6188: 6182: 6178: 6174: 6173: 6172: 6171: 6167: 6163: 6161: 6160: 6150: 6142: 6140: 6139: 6134: 6130: 6126: 6115: 6107: 6104: 6103: 6096: 6092: 6087: 6086: 6077: 6073: 6069: 6065: 6064: 6063: 6058: 6054: 6036: 6028: 6024: 6020: 6016: 6012: 6011: 6010: 6007: 6006: 5999: 5995: 5990: 5989: 5988: 5984: 5980: 5976: 5972: 5968: 5967: 5966: 5961: 5957: 5942: 5938: 5933: 5923: 5919: 5915: 5911: 5907: 5906: 5905: 5902: 5899: 5890: 5889: 5888: 5885: 5882: 5873: 5872: 5871: 5866: 5861: 5859: 5858:Novem Linguae 5853: 5850: 5849: 5848: 5843: 5841: 5833: 5831: 5822: 5817: 5813: 5809: 5808: 5807: 5806: 5803: 5800: 5791: 5785: 5772: 5768: 5764: 5760: 5754: 5749: 5743: 5739: 5735: 5731: 5726: 5722: 5718: 5717: 5715: 5711: 5706: 5705: 5704: 5700: 5696: 5692: 5687: 5686: 5685: 5681: 5677: 5669: 5665: 5664: 5663: 5662: 5658: 5654: 5648: 5644: 5642: 5622: 5618: 5614: 5610: 5609: 5608: 5604: 5600: 5592: 5590: 5586: 5582: 5577: 5574: 5573: 5572: 5568: 5564: 5554: 5550: 5546: 5542: 5541: 5535: 5534: 5533: 5529: 5525: 5520: 5519: 5518: 5514: 5510: 5509: 5503: 5502: 5501: 5497: 5493: 5488: 5487: 5486: 5485: 5481: 5477: 5476: 5462: 5461: 5460: 5459: 5458: 5457: 5451: 5450: 5449: 5448: 5443: 5442: 5441: 5437: 5426: 5422: 5418: 5413: 5412: 5411: 5406: 5401: 5397: 5392: 5388: 5378: 5374: 5370: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5360: 5356: 5350: 5349: 5348: 5344: 5340: 5335: 5334: 5333: 5329: 5325: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5314: 5310: 5306: 5298: 5294: 5290: 5285: 5284: 5283: 5279: 5275: 5267: 5257: 5250: 5249: 5248: 5244: 5240: 5235: 5234: 5233: 5229: 5225: 5222: 5218: 5214: 5211: 5210: 5209: 5205: 5201: 5196: 5192: 5187: 5182: 5177: 5174: 5170: 5165: 5161: 5157: 5153: 5149: 5144: 5140: 5139: 5138: 5133: 5129: 5113: 5109: 5105: 5099: 5095: 5091: 5087: 5082: 5079: 5075: 5073: 5069: 5063: 5062: 5057: 5054: 5053: 5052: 5049: 5047: 5040: 5037: 5033: 5025: 5021: 5017: 5013: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5003: 4999: 4995: 4991: 4986: 4981: 4978: 4975: 4974: 4972: 4968: 4965: 4963: 4959: 4955: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4945: 4943: 4942: 4936: 4935: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4920: 4915: 4913: 4912:Novem Linguae 4906: 4903: 4898: 4894: 4890: 4886: 4882: 4880: 4875: 4870: 4868: 4867:Novem Linguae 4862: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4854: 4852: 4851: 4845: 4844: 4837: 4833: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4823: 4819: 4815: 4811: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4802: 4799: 4798: 4790: 4786: 4782: 4778: 4774: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4764: 4760: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4750: 4746: 4741: 4737: 4733: 4727: 4723: 4719: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4709: 4705: 4700: 4699:Novem Linguae 4696: 4695: 4694: 4689: 4684: 4682: 4681:Novem Linguae 4673: 4665: 4659: 4656: 4653: 4652: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4639: 4635: 4631: 4627: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4618: 4615: 4614: 4607: 4603: 4599: 4595: 4591: 4590: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4579: 4575: 4571: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4559: 4555: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4536: 4529: 4526: 4523: 4520:(without .). 4518: 4513: 4509: 4505: 4501: 4497: 4494: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4482: 4479: 4477: 4471: 4467: 4463: 4459: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4449: 4441: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4419: 4415: 4411: 4401: 4398: 4394: 4389: 4386: 4382: 4378: 4376: 4373: 4370: 4368: 4362: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4351: 4347: 4341: 4338: 4326: 4322: 4318: 4314: 4310: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4295: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4270: 4265: 4263: 4262:Novem Linguae 4257: 4253: 4250: 4248: 4245: 4242: 4238: 4234: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4223: 4218: 4216: 4215:Novem Linguae 4210: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4179: 4156: 4151: 4146: 4144: 4143:Novem Linguae 4138: 4137: 4136: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4114: 4113: 4108: 4107: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4088: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4078: 4077: 4072: 4071: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4033: 4028: 4026: 4018: 4016: 4008: 3992: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3966: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3948: 3944: 3940: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3894: 3890: 3886: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3869: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3834: 3830: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3806: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3787: 3783: 3782:Novem Linguae 3779: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3723: 3718: 3716: 3715:Novem Linguae 3710: 3709: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3674: 3669: 3667: 3666:Novem Linguae 3661: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3641:Victor Albisu 3634: 3627: 3611: 3607: 3606:contributions 3603: 3599: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3588: 3586: 3578: 3576: 3566: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3558: 3557:contributions 3554: 3550: 3546: 3536: 3531: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3500: 3499:contributions 3496: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3478: 3477:contributions 3474: 3470: 3463: 3457: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3446: 3441: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3430: 3429:contributions 3426: 3422: 3418: 3416: 3410: 3406: 3405:Novem Linguae 3402: 3398: 3396: 3391: 3386: 3384: 3383:Novem Linguae 3375: 3368: 3363: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3348: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3336: 3335:contributions 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3304: 3299: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3287: 3286:contributions 3283: 3279: 3274: 3260: 3257: 3255: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3232: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3185: 3180: 3176: 3161: 3157: 3149: 3144: 3139: 3137: 3136:Novem Linguae 3131: 3130: 3129: 3124: 3119: 3117: 3116:Novem Linguae 3111: 3110: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3092:Novem Linguae 3089: 3088: 3087: 3082: 3077: 3075: 3074:Novem Linguae 3068: 3064: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3045: 3043: 3032: 3031:Novem Linguae 3027: 3023: 3019: 3017: 3016: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2998: 2994:preserve it. 2992: 2988: 2987: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2962: 2957: 2955: 2954:Novem Linguae 2949: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2939: 2937: 2928: 2927: 2924: 2922: 2913: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2875: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2840: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2792:§ Leaderboard 2789: 2788:backlog drive 2785: 2781: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2770: 2764: 2748: 2734: 2729: 2725: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2688: 2684: 2666:Page Curation 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2622: 2619: 2618: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2510: 2505: 2499: 2498: 2493: 2490: 2487: 2484: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2472: 2465: 2461: 2459: 2455: 2454: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2385:If there are 2384: 2382: 2378: 2376: 2371: 2364: 2361:Furthermore, 2360: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2322: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2290: 2288: 2287: 2281: 2280: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2249: 2247: 2246: 2240: 2239: 2218: 2213: 2208: 2206: 2205:Novem Linguae 2200: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2132: 2131:uncategorised 2125: 2121: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2111: 2106: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2096: 2090: 2089: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2058: 2057:Music ratings 2051: 2037: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2016: 2011: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1990: 1985: 1978: 1968: 1961: 1957: 1956:this revision 1949: 1942: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1886: 1885:Tutorial Page 1882: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1850: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1832: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1798: 1793: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1779:being resumes 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1764: 1753: 1748: 1743: 1738: 1735: 1728: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1700: 1696: 1693: 1689: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1665: 1659: 1654: 1652: 1647: 1642: 1640: 1639:Novem Linguae 1633: 1629: 1628: 1625: 1620: 1615: 1611: 1606: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1590: 1565: 1560: 1555: 1550: 1546: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1526: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1484: 1480: 1475: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1464: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1423: 1421: 1415: 1413: 1412: 1404: 1403:WP:NEWSPAPERS 1399: 1398: 1397: 1392: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1334: 1329: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1302: 1297: 1293: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1261: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1240: 1232: 1228: 1226: 1222: 1219: 1218: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1121: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1064: 1060: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1047: 1042: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1024: 1022: 1018: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 992: 987: 982: 978: 974: 973: 972: 971: 967: 963: 959: 958:autopatrolled 953: 939: 936: 929: 923: 922: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 904:Novem Linguae 901: 897: 893: 889: 885: 881: 877: 876: 875: 872: 865: 859: 858: 857: 852: 847: 845: 844:Novem Linguae 839: 835: 831: 827: 822: 820: 812: 810: 802: 798: 797: 796: 792: 791: 783: 777: 772: 771: 770: 769: 766: 759: 741: 736: 731: 730: 716: 715: 711: 707: 705: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 678: 676: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 641: 637: 633: 631: 625: 624: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 593: 589: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 505: 501: 497: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 414: 413: 409: 404: 399: 398: 393: 386: 381: 375: 362: 359: 352: 351: 344: 340: 339: 330: 324: 320: 313: 312: 304: 300: 299: 296: 285: 280: 276: 273: 268: 264: 263: 254: 246: 238: 230: 226:10 months old 222: 212: 209: 207: 200: 195: 193: 188: 186: 181: 180: 170: 164: 161: 160: 155: 152: 150: 147: 145: 142: 141: 137: 136: 132: 130: 127: 122: 121: 120:Curation tool 117: 115: 109: 106: 104: 101: 99: 96: 95: 91: 90: 86: 84: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 64: 60: 59: 58:New page feed 55: 53: 51: 50: 46: 44: 42: 41: 37: 35: 34: 25: 19: 6218: 6217: 6186: 6158: 6157: 6143: 6137: 6118: 6098: 6001: 5857: 5839: 5829: 5780: 5759:phab:T375330 5690: 5649: 5645: 5638: 5539: 5538: 5507: 5506: 5474: 5473: 5470: 5438: 5435: 5395: 5220: 5212: 5179:reviewer. – 5173:WP:DELREASON 5168: 5163: 5060: 5055: 5045: 5011: 4993: 4990:Wolverine XI 4982:Rejects: 118 4976:Accepts: 801 4966: 4940: 4939: 4933: 4932: 4911: 4866: 4849: 4848: 4842: 4841: 4831: 4813: 4793: 4680: 4647: 4629: 4625: 4609: 4588: 4587: 4539: 4522:SilverLocust 4503: 4475: 4442: 4427: 4381:Women in Red 4366: 4342: 4334: 4261: 4251: 4241:SilverLocust 4214: 4209:phab:T327955 4188: 4172: 4142: 4110: 4105: 4074: 4069: 4043: 4024: 4014: 3952: 3951: 3905: 3904: 3873: 3872: 3838: 3837: 3791: 3790: 3786:Love, Sitara 3778:Innisfree987 3775: 3748:Innisfree987 3714: 3684:Innisfree987 3665: 3660:phab:T374300 3645:Innisfree987 3638: 3632:Task T374300 3584: 3574: 3520: 3517:WP:MERGEPROP 3461: 3412: 3382: 3346: 3345: 3344:said below. 3302: 3301: 3297: 3270: 3249: 3230: 3229: 3226: 3159: 3135: 3115: 3073: 3067:post on phab 3037: 3014: 3013: 2996: 2995: 2953: 2931: 2929: 2916: 2909: 2813: 2744: 2669: 2630: 2613: 2549: 2515: 2497:Sign up here 2495: 2456: 2386: 2372: 2325: 2285: 2284: 2278: 2277: 2244: 2243: 2237: 2236: 2232: 2204: 2199:phab:T371168 2149: 2141: 2087: 2047:<ref name 2043:<ref: --> 2029:<ref name 2025:<ref: --> 1953: 1947:Task T371168 1910: 1889:— Preceding 1866: 1858: 1762: 1761: 1758: 1704:— Preceding 1677:WP:NMUSICIAN 1638: 1588: 1587: 1584: 1544: 1530:Newimpartial 1509: 1508: 1494:Newimpartial 1482: 1478: 1462: 1461: 1434:. Signup at 1419: 1410: 1409: 1356: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1238: 1237: 1235: 1225:WP:NACADEMIC 1216: 1215: 1209: 1185: 1160:WP:NACADEMIC 1143: 1134: 1067: 1058: 1035: 1025: 1016: 1014: 954: 951: 843: 818: 808: 787: 753: 734: 702: 673: 628: 407: 380: 337: 322: 283: 271: 242:5 months old 178:NPP backlog 135:Coordination 133: 118: 87: 56: 48: 47: 39: 6205:Sohom Datta 5712:'s ticket 5558:experience. 5256:In creation 4106:DreamRimmer 4087:DreamRimmer 4070:DreamRimmer 3626:Phabricator 3624:Tracked in 3411:have said: 3399:I've added 3253:scope_creep 3204:Scope creep 3041:scope_creep 2935:scope_creep 2920:scope_creep 2912:Batik shirt 2780:WP:DRAFTIFY 2652:Ozzie10aaaa 2637:Atlantic306 2627:Refill tool 2590:StewdioMACK 2557:StewdioMACK 2369:Ratnahastin 2326:The editor 2258:WP:PERM/NPR 1941:Phabricator 1939:Tracked in 1865:is helpful. 1734:WP:DRAFTIFY 1382:WP:PRESERVE 1236:Sincerely, 927:✠ SunDawn ✠ 863:✠ SunDawn ✠ 757:✠ SunDawn ✠ 369:NPP backlog 329:invite link 282:There is a 270:There is a 217:↓457 126:Suggestions 6015:asilvering 5910:Clovermoss 5894:Clovermoss 5877:Clovermoss 5795:Clovermoss 5736:(he/him • 5695:asilvering 5655:(he/him • 5613:asilvering 5565:(he/him • 5415:creation. 5369:asilvering 5339:asilvering 5309:asilvering 5150:(he/him • 5112:WP:TOOSOON 5016:asilvering 4956:(he/him • 4885:asilvering 4836:WP:NPPHOUR 4773:Asilvering 4759:asilvering 4704:asilvering 4634:asilvering 4570:asilvering 4556:(he/him • 4550:WP:NPPHOUR 4542:WP:NPPHOUR 4535:WP:NPPHOUR 4299:asilvering 4280:asilvering 4193:Bobby Cohn 3620:Autopatrol 3509:due weight 3228:articles. 3212:asilvering 3208:WP:AICLEAN 3100:asilvering 3065:There's a 3053:asilvering 2973:asilvering 2886:asilvering 2851:asilvering 2818:Bobby Cohn 2800:Bobby Cohn 2784:WP:DRAFTNO 2553:recent log 2431:asilvering 2395:asilvering 2363:WP:TAGGING 2298:WP:NPPSORT 1915:asilvering 1098:citations. 284:very large 272:very large 154:Newsletter 49:Discussion 6219:Steel1943 6177:Steel1943 6159:Steel1943 6127:has been 5814:'s handy 5753:Shushugah 5734:Shushugah 5727:for that. 5675:(she/her) 5653:Shushugah 5641:WP:NPPDAY 5598:(she/her) 5576:Shushugah 5563:Shushugah 5540:North8000 5508:North8000 5475:North8000 5355:Barkeep49 5324:Barkeep49 5289:Barkeep49 5274:John B123 5239:Barkeep49 5224:John B123 5200:Barkeep49 5148:Shushugah 5036:WP:BEFORE 4954:Shushugah 4934:Wolverine 4843:Wolverine 4810:Dr vulpes 4796:Dr vulpes 4650:Dr vulpes 4612:Dr vulpes 4606:Shushugah 4589:North8000 4554:Shushugah 4546:WP:NPPDAY 4317:John B123 3983:John B123 3975:WP:SIGCOV 3949:. Thanks 3939:John B123 3925:John B123 3734:John B123 3699:John B123 3409:North8000 3347:North8000 3303:North8000 3231:North8000 2997:North8000 2865:WP:BEFORE 2699:MPGuy2824 2635:regards, 2586:MPGuy2824 2572:MPGuy2824 2412:talk page 2387:recurring 2279:Wolverine 2238:Wolverine 2185:John B123 2154:John B123 2071:John B123 2001:this edit 1911:obviously 1895:Cl3phact0 1871:Cl3phact0 1826:WP:ACPERM 1808:John B123 1763:North8000 1685:WP:NALBUM 1632:WP:BEFORE 1589:North8000 1510:North8000 1463:North8000 1378:WP:BURDEN 1374:WP:NEXIST 1317:North8000 1312:inclusion 1239:North8000 1191:John B123 1187:qualify). 1168:Cl3phact0 1156:WP:ANYBIO 1085:John B123 977:WP:PERM/A 933:(contact) 912:DannyS712 880:DannyS712 869:(contact) 838:DannyS712 763:(contact) 231:Redirects 98:Resources 89:Reviewers 4902:WP:BITEy 4736:WP:BITEY 4361:Logger67 4346:Logger67 4173:The tag 3977:to pass 3819:contribs 3401:guidance 2584:Thanks @ 2532:★Trekker 2416:Aszx5000 2345:Aszx5000 1903:contribs 1891:unsigned 1718:contribs 1706:unsigned 1681:WP:NSONG 1355:I mean, 1220:in depth 1184:item 6c 1144:presumed 801:MoreMenu 789:Rational 408:Archives 303:WT:NPP/R 295:Shortcut 210:Articles 40:Tutorial 5725:T375336 5714:T375330 5078:Acebulf 5046:Acebulf 4492:ASUKITE 4462:CSD A10 4458:Asukite 4447:ASUKITE 4091:Charlie 4054:Charlie 3567:because 3487:Joe Roe 3367:WP:BLAR 3160:usually 2391:WP:NORN 2148:showed 1977:reflist 1673:WP:NGEO 1669:WP:NPOL 1658:Joe Roe 1483:article 1370:WP:ARTN 1154:(e.g., 896:SunDawn 776:SunDawn 735:30 days 77:Reports 6101:buidhe 6004:buidhe 5912:Done! 5901:(talk) 5884:(talk) 5802:(talk) 5763:GTrang 5710:GTrang 4801:(Talk) 4740:WP:AFD 4655:(Talk) 4617:(Talk) 4385:WP:TEA 4183:says " 4127:Paul W 3979:WP:GNG 3971:WP:NFF 3965:C1K98V 3953:C1K98V 3947:WP:GNG 3943:WP:NFF 3921:WP:GNG 3917:WP:NFF 3906:C1K98V 3885:C1K98V 3874:C1K98V 3850:C1K98V 3839:C1K98V 3805:C1K98V 3792:C1K98V 3776:Hello 3598:voorts 3549:voorts 3491:voorts 3469:voorts 3421:voorts 3327:voorts 3323:WP:PAM 3278:voorts 2991:WP:TNT 2948:WP:TNT 2616:buidhe 2140:shows 1836:WP:NOT 1698:usage. 1691:limit. 1333:WP:YFA 1152:WP:SNG 1148:WP:GNG 1131:WT:BIO 1111:WP:YFA 1036:expand 149:Awards 103:School 67:Sorted 6187:Sohom 6131:with 5732:~ 🦝 5720:that. 5061:Sohom 4544:with 4476:Rusty 4367:Rusty 4178:db-g4 3407:and @ 3374:Merge 3319:WP:CR 3202:Oh, @ 3098:. -- 2762:alien 2509:here. 2332:WP:OR 2166:Also 2088:Sohom 1683:, or 1479:topic 1026:Take 16:< 6226:talk 6193:talk 6166:talk 6072:talk 6019:talk 5983:talk 5941:this 5918:talk 5865:talk 5840:sigh 5790:this 5767:talk 5757:See 5738:talk 5699:talk 5691:only 5680:talk 5657:talk 5617:talk 5603:talk 5585:talk 5567:talk 5545:talk 5528:talk 5513:talk 5496:talk 5480:talk 5421:talk 5405:talk 5373:talk 5359:talk 5343:talk 5328:talk 5313:talk 5293:talk 5278:talk 5243:talk 5228:talk 5204:talk 5186:talk 5152:talk 5094:talk 5067:talk 5020:talk 5012:once 5002:talk 4958:talk 4919:talk 4889:talk 4874:talk 4822:talk 4781:talk 4763:talk 4749:talk 4722:talk 4708:talk 4688:talk 4638:talk 4630:more 4626:more 4594:talk 4574:talk 4558:talk 4414:talk 4350:talk 4321:talk 4315:. -- 4303:talk 4284:talk 4269:talk 4222:talk 4197:talk 4150:talk 4131:talk 4123:SPAs 4112:talk 4095:talk 4076:talk 4058:talk 4025:sigh 3987:talk 3929:talk 3923:. -- 3893:talk 3858:talk 3829:Elli 3815:talk 3811:Elli 3752:talk 3738:talk 3722:talk 3703:talk 3688:talk 3673:talk 3649:talk 3602:talk 3585:sigh 3553:talk 3530:talk 3511:and 3495:talk 3473:talk 3445:talk 3425:talk 3390:talk 3352:talk 3331:talk 3308:talk 3282:talk 3236:talk 3216:talk 3194:talk 3143:talk 3123:talk 3104:talk 3081:talk 3057:talk 3002:talk 2977:talk 2961:talk 2890:talk 2874:talk 2855:talk 2839:talk 2822:talk 2804:talk 2768:talk 2759:ugly 2703:talk 2656:talk 2641:talk 2594:talk 2576:talk 2561:talk 2536:talk 2521:talk 2435:talk 2420:talk 2399:talk 2375:talk 2349:talk 2306:talk 2266:talk 2212:talk 2189:talk 2178:and 2158:talk 2110:talk 2094:talk 2075:talk 2010:talk 2003:. – 1989:talk 1967:cite 1919:talk 1899:talk 1875:talk 1849:talk 1812:talk 1792:talk 1768:talk 1747:talk 1714:talk 1646:talk 1619:talk 1594:talk 1559:talk 1534:talk 1515:talk 1498:talk 1468:talk 1449:talk 1432:here 1420:talk 1391:talk 1347:talk 1322:talk 1301:talk 1290:the 1281:talk 1260:talk 1244:talk 1195:talk 1172:talk 1150:via 1135:Talk 1120:talk 1089:talk 1046:talk 1001:talk 986:talk 966:talk 916:talk 884:talk 851:talk 819:sigh 258:5784 250:2276 234:9837 214:8688 144:Talk 72:Easy 5812:CFA 5400:Joe 5352:--> 5261:or 5181:Joe 5169:can 5164:not 4406:~ L 4239:.) 3945:or 3919:or 3780:, @ 3525:Joe 3440:Joe 3298:can 2869:Joe 2834:Joe 2756:big 2753:The 2105:Joe 2045:or 2036:sfn 2027:or 2005:Joe 1984:Joe 1958:of 1844:Joe 1787:Joe 1781:or 1742:Joe 1671:or 1614:Joe 1554:Joe 1441:~ L 1386:Joe 1339:~ L 1296:Joe 1273:~ L 1255:Joe 1217:him 1115:Joe 1041:Joe 981:Joe 108:Top 6228:) 6196:) 6168:) 6152:}} 6146:{{ 6097:) 6093:· 6074:) 6057:💬 6038:}} 6032:{{ 6021:) 6000:) 5996:· 5985:) 5960:💬 5920:) 5897:🍀 5880:🍀 5798:🍀 5769:) 5761:. 5740:) 5716:. 5701:) 5682:) 5659:) 5619:) 5605:) 5587:) 5569:) 5547:) 5530:) 5515:) 5498:) 5482:) 5423:) 5375:) 5361:) 5345:) 5330:) 5315:) 5295:) 5280:) 5269:}} 5263:{{ 5259:}} 5253:{{ 5245:) 5230:) 5219:: 5206:) 5154:) 5132:💬 5096:) 5070:) 5022:) 5004:) 4992:. 4973:. 4960:) 4941:XI 4891:) 4850:XI 4832:no 4824:) 4814:is 4783:) 4765:) 4751:) 4724:) 4710:) 4675:}} 4669:{{ 4640:) 4596:) 4576:) 4560:) 4525:💬 4481:🐈 4416:) 4409:🌸 4399:.) 4372:🐈 4352:) 4323:) 4305:) 4286:) 4244:💬 4199:) 4181:}} 4175:{{ 4133:) 4115:) 4097:) 4079:) 4060:) 3989:) 3931:) 3895:) 3860:) 3821:) 3817:| 3754:) 3740:) 3732:-- 3705:) 3697:-- 3690:) 3651:) 3608:) 3559:) 3519:: 3501:) 3479:) 3431:) 3377:}} 3371:{{ 3354:) 3337:) 3325:. 3310:) 3288:) 3238:) 3218:) 3196:) 3179:💬 3106:) 3059:) 3018:iz 3004:) 2979:) 2892:) 2857:) 2824:) 2806:) 2771:) 2728:💬 2705:) 2687:💬 2658:) 2643:) 2612:) 2608:· 2596:) 2578:) 2563:) 2538:) 2523:) 2437:) 2422:) 2401:) 2351:) 2308:) 2286:XI 2268:) 2245:XI 2229:Hi 2191:) 2174:, 2170:, 2160:) 2134:}} 2128:{{ 2097:) 2077:) 2060:}} 2054:{{ 2039:}} 2033:{{ 1980:}} 1974:{{ 1970:}} 1964:{{ 1921:) 1905:) 1901:• 1887:. 1877:) 1814:) 1770:) 1720:) 1716:• 1679:, 1596:) 1545:is 1536:) 1517:) 1500:) 1470:) 1451:) 1444:🌸 1424:) 1380:, 1376:, 1372:, 1349:) 1342:🌸 1324:) 1283:) 1276:🌸 1246:) 1197:) 1174:) 1133:) 1091:) 1039:– 1003:) 968:) 918:) 886:) 695:. 691:, 687:, 683:, 666:, 662:, 658:, 654:, 650:. 646:, 642:, 638:, 620:52 618:, 616:51 612:50 610:, 608:49 606:, 604:48 602:, 600:47 598:, 596:46 594:, 592:45 590:, 588:44 586:, 584:43 582:, 580:42 578:, 576:41 572:40 570:, 568:39 566:, 564:38 562:, 560:37 558:, 556:36 554:, 552:35 550:, 548:34 546:, 544:33 542:, 540:32 538:, 536:31 532:30 530:, 528:29 526:, 524:28 522:, 520:27 518:, 516:26 514:, 512:25 510:, 508:24 506:, 504:23 502:, 500:22 498:, 496:21 492:20 490:, 488:19 486:, 484:18 482:, 480:17 478:, 476:16 474:, 472:15 470:, 468:14 466:, 464:13 462:, 460:12 458:, 456:11 452:10 450:, 446:, 442:, 438:, 434:, 430:, 426:, 422:, 418:, 6224:( 6207:: 6203:@ 6190:( 6175:@ 6164:( 6095:c 6091:t 6089:( 6070:( 6051:A 6048:F 6045:C 6017:( 5998:c 5994:t 5981:( 5954:A 5951:F 5948:C 5916:( 5908:@ 5867:) 5863:( 5854:– 5844:) 5836:( 5826:— 5786:: 5782:@ 5765:( 5755:: 5751:@ 5697:( 5678:( 5615:( 5601:( 5583:( 5543:( 5526:( 5511:( 5494:( 5478:( 5419:( 5407:) 5403:( 5371:( 5357:( 5341:( 5326:( 5311:( 5291:( 5276:( 5241:( 5226:( 5202:( 5188:) 5184:( 5126:A 5123:F 5120:C 5092:( 5076:@ 5064:( 5018:( 5000:( 4988:@ 4921:) 4917:( 4908:– 4887:( 4876:) 4872:( 4820:( 4779:( 4771:@ 4761:( 4747:( 4720:( 4706:( 4697:@ 4690:) 4686:( 4636:( 4592:( 4572:( 4502:" 4456:@ 4412:( 4359:@ 4348:( 4319:( 4301:( 4282:( 4271:) 4267:( 4224:) 4220:( 4211:– 4195:( 4152:) 4148:( 4129:( 4109:( 4093:( 4085:@ 4073:( 4056:( 4029:) 4021:( 4011:— 3985:( 3967:: 3963:@ 3937:@ 3927:( 3891:( 3883:@ 3866:@ 3856:( 3848:@ 3827:@ 3813:( 3807:: 3803:@ 3750:( 3736:( 3724:) 3720:( 3701:( 3686:( 3675:) 3671:( 3647:( 3604:/ 3600:( 3589:) 3581:( 3571:— 3555:/ 3551:( 3532:) 3528:( 3497:/ 3493:( 3475:/ 3471:( 3447:) 3443:( 3427:/ 3423:( 3392:) 3388:( 3350:( 3333:/ 3329:( 3306:( 3284:/ 3280:( 3234:( 3214:( 3192:( 3173:A 3170:F 3167:C 3145:) 3141:( 3125:) 3121:( 3102:( 3090:@ 3083:) 3079:( 3070:– 3055:( 3033:: 3029:@ 3015:L 3000:( 2975:( 2963:) 2959:( 2888:( 2876:) 2872:( 2853:( 2841:) 2837:( 2820:( 2802:( 2765:( 2722:A 2719:F 2716:C 2701:( 2681:A 2678:F 2675:C 2654:( 2639:( 2610:c 2606:t 2592:( 2574:( 2559:( 2534:( 2519:( 2500:. 2460:| 2433:( 2418:( 2397:( 2377:) 2373:( 2347:( 2304:( 2264:( 2214:) 2210:( 2201:– 2187:( 2156:( 2112:) 2108:( 2091:( 2073:( 2049:. 2012:) 2008:( 1991:) 1987:( 1917:( 1897:( 1873:( 1851:) 1847:( 1810:( 1794:) 1790:( 1766:( 1749:) 1745:( 1729:: 1725:@ 1712:( 1660:: 1656:@ 1648:) 1644:( 1621:) 1617:( 1592:( 1561:) 1557:( 1532:( 1513:( 1496:( 1466:( 1447:( 1416:( 1393:) 1389:( 1357:I 1345:( 1320:( 1303:) 1299:( 1279:( 1262:) 1258:( 1242:( 1193:( 1170:( 1122:) 1118:( 1087:( 1048:) 1044:( 999:( 988:) 984:( 964:( 914:( 906:@ 902:@ 898:@ 894:@ 882:( 853:) 849:( 840:– 823:) 815:( 805:— 778:: 774:@ 710:1 706:: 697:5 693:4 689:3 685:2 681:1 677:: 668:9 664:8 660:7 656:6 652:5 648:4 644:3 640:2 636:1 632:: 448:9 444:8 440:7 436:6 432:5 428:4 424:3 420:2 416:1 331:) 198:e 191:t 184:v 26:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers - Knowledge

Index