User talk:Jeffrey R. Clark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| IN | Jeffrey R. Clark is currently online and will respond quickly to messages. |
- Monday 2:00 P.M.- 4:00P.M.
- Tuesday 12:00 P.M.- 4:00 P.M.
- Wednesday 3:00 P.M.- 4:00 P.M.
- Thurs-Fri 9:00 P.M.- 3:00 A.M.
- Sat-Sun In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 12:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M. Central Time Zone.
- When you loaded this page, it was 16:52, April 22, 2025 CDT [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
- To update this, click here.
DO NOT PRESS
 |
Welcome to my talk page.
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023
[edit]Hello Jeffrey R. Clark,
Backlog
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp connect on IRC.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
WikiProject Scouting Newsletter: May 2024
[edit]
Other ways to participate: |
Question from BluePearlOyster (07:09, 29 March 2025)
[edit]Hello Jeffery, I found the wiki page on Shri Vidya, which was very short, lacking in dept and just touching the surface of this deep topic. So I decided to edit it. It was my first attempt at editing in Wikipedia. A detailed overview of Shri Vidya Tantra, including core practices, philosophical foundations, Guru-disciple tradition, role of the divine feminine, path to liberation and contemporary influences, was included as a part of the edit. Also multiple links and citations were added to help the reader get a holistic view of this topic. But despite of all these efforts, someone came along and undid all my edits, citing that it was a "massive change that did not improve the article." As my mentor can you help me understand how I can tackle this scenario and edit this article successfully. --BluePearlOyster (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Question from Vicky the stargirl on User:Vicky the stargirl (21:52, 1 April 2025)
[edit]Hi, how can I out a picture of the person I'm writing about --Vicky the stargirl (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Question from Moubliezpas (10:57, 6 April 2025)
[edit]Hi, how's it going?
I just need a sanity check if you've got a moment - it looks like the lede for the film Mickey 17 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_17#) is being persistently edited to specifically say it's a 'box office flop / bomb' with no source or citation, and despite the positive reviews and the fact that it's in the 10 highest grossing films this year.
Thing is, I've reverted to the previous versions a few times and it keeps being undone with edit summaries like 'who is calling it a success?' which... does not seem like a valid edit summary, or relevant to box office figures, let alone justify the edits.
I'm not in any way experienced, and as I have strong opinions about the political message of the film (very Trump / Musk relevant) I don't feel right just slapping on warning and requesting page protection, as I'm not a neutral party.
Also the edits seem to be coming from a few users and IP's, apparently active 24/7 making vast amounts of edits - one of them only seems to be editing pages about media featuring black people, Jewish people, or notably left leaning in politics, and another seems to be a human, not bot, who makes hundreds of edits every day all documented as 'added box office figures' right after controversial edits, and their talk page is just loads of people saying 'dude what are your doing'.
I do not have the time or inclination to engage in a 1-man battle against tyranny 😂 so would really welcome your experienced, unbiased opinion on whether I should flag this to someone else, issue a couple of warnings, request page protection, or if I'm just misunderstanding the definition of 'box office flop' or how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
Thanks a lot in advance. I'm an opinionated person so try to avoid editing for everyone's benefit, but it seems wrong that a couple of people can keep adding this to such a narrow selection of articles and I figure reverting to previous facts should be a way to contribute without adding bias --Moubliezpas (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 April 2025
[edit]- Opinion: Crawlers, hogs and gorillas
- Debriefing: Giraffer's RfA debriefing
- Obituary: RHaworth, TomCat4680 and PawełMM
- Traffic report: Heigh-Ho, Heigh-Ho, off to report we go...
- News from Diff: Strengthening Wikipedia’s neutral point of view
- Comix: Thirteen
The Bugle: Issue 228, April 2025
[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)