User talk:Lovkal
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023
[edit]Hello Lovkal,
Backlog
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp connect on IRC.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive
[edit]| New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
May 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award
[edit]
|
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | |
| This award is given in recognition to Lovkal for accumulating at least 100 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
May 2024 NPP backlog drive – Streak award
[edit]
|
Worm Gear Award | |
| This award is given in recognition to Lovkal for accumulating at least 7 points during each week of the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
Revert of Edit Exposing Bias
[edit]Hi, why do you insist on defending sexism on Wikipedia when you revert my edit exposing it and then claim my edit was vandalism? What’s the deal? 73.31.121.225 (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hiya! Because you are clearly not editing in good faith. Wikipedia is not the place for "exposing". I suggest adding meaningful content in a neutral tone backed up by reliable sources if you genuinely wish to contribute. Otherwise there is Twitter. Let me know if you have further questions or concerns. ~ lovkal (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Re: The Arkiv Digital draft article
[edit]Hi! I saw that you declined the submission of the Draft:Arkiv Digital article saying it was lacking reliable sources. That surprised me, since most of the sources are annual reports. These are generally considered reliable sources for several reasons: they are regulated by several laws and the operations and finances of the company are reviewed by an external certified auditor. I've commented on that more extensively on the Talk page of the article. Houtos (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi! Sorry for being unclear. The concern isn't as much about the reliability of the provided sources, but rather that they are self-published. Supposing that the annual reports are drafted in such a way that makes them reliable in the sense of them containing objective input and so on, they're still self-published by the company itself. Self-pubilshed sources are useless in proving a subject's notability, which is just as important as reliability on the English Wikipedia. Without this requirement, Wikipedia would become a soapbox for companies promoting themselves really quickly. In a nutshell: what the article needs is reliable, third-party news media references that describe the article subject in a non-promotional manner. Hope this helps! ~ lovkal (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's an untenable stance here. As you say yourself, the reliability of these annual reports are not the concern. The Wikipedia policy is a general one that needs to be applied per case; it's not a broad, sweeping assertion or generalization that covers an entire group, situation, or concept without considering individual variations or nuances. The way you put it, wouldn't that be what's called a blanket statement (no offence meant)?
- You refer to Wikipedia's policy about self-published works, which says: "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources."
- However, an annual report is far, far cry from anything like that, for the very reason that it's a *crime* for a company to present the wrong figures or say that they've done things they haven't and vice versa. And all of this - the company's finances, operations and management, all of it - has been reviewed by an external auditor, who also would commit a crime by not giving a correct representation of the situation. That's the reason why finance journalists, share holders, authorities use quarterly reports and annual reports as serious sources. Financial papers like Dagens Industri use them all the time as sources. The auditor's statement is included in the Arkiv Digital annual report for each year, and I've archived them and linked to them, so it's easy to check that's the case.
- The Wikipedia policy on the use of self-published sources says, under the heading "Acceptable use of self-published works": "The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims." That's the case with Håkan Skogsjö, whose book on genealogical research and Arkiv Digital is referred to in the article. He is just that: a well-known publisher and genealogical expert who has received multiple awards in Finland and Sweden for his works. Professor Michael Lundholm has reviewed this book. (I've already mentioned that on the Talk page of the Draft:Arkiv Digital article.)
- And apart from that, there *is* an independent reviewer of Arkiv Digital's databases, which I've also mentioned: David A. Fryxell for the Family Tree Magazine, the biggest North American genealogy magazine, and the author of a book on genealogical research in Scandinavia. (He's not affiliated with Arkiv Digital.)
- Arkiv Digital is a company whose whole work consists of creating digital databases of historical sources and name indexes to such sources and uploading it all on the internet. It's a digital library, continuously updated. Who reviews an entire library? Several US libraries have Arkiv Digital subscriptions, which they mention on their websites, with information fetched directly from Arkiv Digital's website. There would be no point in referring to them referring back to Arkiv Digital.
- As for notability: Researchers and genealogists refer to sources in Arkiv Digital's databases all the time. The genealogical forum Rötters Anbytarforum, an immense online genealogy forum since 1997, contains thousands and thousands of references to these databases. I've already mentioned Svensk Genealogisk Tidskrift on the Talk page of the article, a journal with academic standards which accepts the Swedish National Archives' image IDs and Arkiv Digital's unique image IDs as parts of valid source references, which is a big deal, really. (But not so for Ancestry.com or My Heritage.) Houtos (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)