User talk:Paul W

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Paul W,

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

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

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

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

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

Backlog:

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

Reminders

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

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Paul W,

New Page Review queue December 2022

Backlog

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

2022 Awards

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

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

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

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

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

Reminders

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

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Paul W,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

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.

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Introduction Membership news, obituary and election results Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page Closing words – Your Guild coordinators: Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Max Conway moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Max Conway. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because of the reasons raised at the AfD in which you participated. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. 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. Star Mississippi 13:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Katy Krassner

Hi. I noticed that you declined my article Draft:Katy Krassner. I have made a number of revisions as well as adding a citation and hope you will reconsider moving this article to the mainspace. I will note that other music industry executives who work with a single artist already have articles on WP. These include Tree Paine and Derek Taylor. Please note that the article on Tree Paine only has 13 citations. Variety312 (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Variety312. I see that another editor (Timtrent) has recently declined the article (I would have done the same). The main issue is lack of significant coverage about Krassner (ie: in-depth articles about her - not just articles with trivial mentions); Tree Paine has multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, Krassner does not. The number of citations is immaterial - it's quality, not quantity of sources, that matters. Paul W (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Request on 17:58:55, 18 October 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Clown Atlas

• Clown Atlas (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Christopher M. Garrity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like someone without a political agenda that has NOT been hired by a person with special interests to review. Also Google lists him as a notable candidate for the office of the united states of America for President. This is GOOGLE finding him notable with a simple search. All other citations are from OUTSIDE credible sources. thank you. I have a list of all screen shots of all the mismatching, contradicting Wikipedias core terms of truthfulness as well as its primary statement of objectivity. Which I am not seeing at this moment on this platform in regards to this important topic. Having a platform that is only held together and or have any validity due to transparency, and unbiased information. We have plenty of other platforms that openly admit they have financial reasons to be biased. Has Wiki fallen to its most recent concerns about finances? I did a lot of work on this NOTABLE candidate for the office of US President. Please revise or advise how to circumvent this oppressive, suppressive negative feedback loop I keep ending up in here at Wiki. Thank you for your kind response and assistance!Clown Atlas (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Clown Atlas. Your message suggests past editors/reviewers of the Garrity article have been hired according to a political agenda. I can seen no evidence of this (FYI, I live in the UK and have only a passing interest in US Presidential elections).

Google searches are irrelevant to Wikipedia notability - what Wikipedia needs (per WP:GNG) is significant coverage of the subject (in this case, naming Garrity) in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Wikipedia has five core pillars (WP:5P) of which the second (neutral point of view; WP:5P2) is perhaps most relevant here - in particular "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person". We have demanding objective standards, but this article does not yet meet those standards.

Also, please look at recent edits highlighting statements requiring citations of reliable sources. Unless these are addressed, the draft will likely continue to be rejected. Paul W (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok asking genuinely and honestly. How can a person who has access to the Majorty vote of 1/3 of our nation and all the other unique notable things about someone. Unique by definition means it hasn't been done yet, well how the heck can you do it the morally uncorrupt way walking the walk if no one will let you be seen? Then it can never happen. With his name the ONLY person under Independents to be actual candidates on the list in Oklahoma this is absolutely notable. This has been a huge problem with deception in our system. I emailed Oklahoma Voter directly kindly asking if they planned to remove Kennedys name off the ballot since he publically withdrew as a candidate and then backed someone from another party. Their response was no. I was shocked and pointed out how this is not clear and transparent government and of course I was ignored. Im just trying to do what our country tells us is the right thing to do stand up for what you believe in and I so desperately want to believe that hope in good still exists. I believe very much after exhaustive research into this person that he has a very notable and real vision with action behind him. I believe his is being quieted because if the world knew he existed it would be a no brainer for this election. Oklahoma understands as I pointed out how allowing his name is like double dipping and mindblowing to me. If people see his name on the ballot they may not know that he withdrew and is a blatant deception of ligitamate candidates. I am not trying to take this out on anyone here but wow it doesn't matter what door you walk in if it says Independents enter here you better run the other way its a red herring. That goes for any of the current "parties". What can I do constructively to make this happen for justice and democracy? Will you assist me as I know there is no way this cannot be resolved.

Thank you honestly for your time any and all thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Do emails like what I have described arise to push my point of a bias going on? Please and thank you Clown Atlas (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Ducera Partners Updates

Hi Paul W, I noticed that you participate in WP:Companies, and thought you might be interested in my proposed updates for Ducera Partners. The page is pretty outdated, and I have some suggestions for how to make it more current based on recent coverage. Thank you PD for Ducera (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi PD for Ducera. I see Axad12 responded to the proposed updates - I agree that citing a list of client deals seems non-encyclopedic; to me, it verges on being promotional. Paul W (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Shame on you, PD for Ducera. The request had already been declined for perfectly legitimate reasons. Approaching another user in this way to try to get the changes implemented through the back door is quite disgraceful. Axad12 (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

To be fair Axad12, judging from the timestamps, PD for Ducera's approach to me was at 15:39, over two hours before you responded (18:59) to the request on the Ducera Partners Talk page. Paul W (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

My mistake. My involvement was now some time ago, I wrongly assumed this correspondence post-dated my involvement. Axad12 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit History on the London Distillery Company

You quoted me as making an unreferenced edit but this is false as it was by a IP editor, I don’t know if there is a way to correct this as this misleads other editors on my contributions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_London_Distillery_Company&diff=prev&oldid=1251077127 ChefBear01 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:ChefBear01, I think you have misread the edit summary. It says the article was restored to a previous version by you following an IP editor's unreferenced addition. Paul W (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have reread the summary apologies I was probably tired and misread

Restored revision 1186476246 by ChefBear01(talk): Unreferenced addition

is there a quicker and shorter way to quote without using (blockquote)? ChefBear01 (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes I just indent a para/quote using a colon (:). Quicker and simpler. Paul W (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ducera followup

Hi Paul W, perhaps you missed my response to you and Axad12 on Talk:Ducera Partners, and I wanted to bring it to your attention. Thanks PD for Ducera (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I did miss your response, PD for Ducera. It is helpful to wikilink to editors' usernames (to 'ping' them, as I just did with your name) so that they are alerted to relevant messages. Paul W (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Paul W, thanks for all of your time and attention at Talk:Ducera Partners#Revised_request. Since no one seems to have taken issue with the language we discussed, are you comfortable with those changes being made? I'm happy to do it myself, if you'd prefer. Thanks again. PD for Ducera (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2024 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2024 Newsletter Hello, and welcome to the December newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. If you no longer want this newsletter, you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. If you'd like to be notified of upcoming drives and blitzes, and other GOCE activities, the best method is to add our announcements box to your watchlist. Election news: The Guild's coordinators play an important role in the WikiProject, making sure nearly everything runs smoothly and on time. Editors in good standing (unblocked and without sanctions) are invited to nominate themselves or another editor to be a Guild coordinator (with their permission, of course) until 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). The voting phase begins at 00:01 on 16 December and runs until 23:59 on 31 December. Questions may be asked of candidates at any stage in the process. Elected coordinators will serve a six-month term from 1 January through 30 June. Drive: In our September Backlog Elimination Drive, 67 editors signed up, 39 completed at least one copy edit, and between them they edited 682,696 words comprising 507 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: The October Copy Editing Blitz saw 16 editors sign-up, 15 of whom completed at least one copy edit. They edited 76,776 words comprising 35 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: In our November Backlog Elimination Drive, 432,320 words in 151 articles were copy edited. Of the 54 users who signed up, 33 copy edited at least one article. Barnstars awarded are posted here. Blitz: The December Blitz will begin at 00:00 on 15 December (UTC) and will end on 21 December at 23:59. Sign up here. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 22:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have completed 333 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,401 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking. To stop receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle_gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC).

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Top AfC Editor

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
		In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Page update deletions

Hi Paul, I hope you are well. I have noticed you have deleted updates to Ian Thomas’s Wikipedia page.

The updates you have deleted are factual and public, with supporting references.

Please could you reinstate the updates? 81.108.79.73 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

No. Your edits: added an external link to the body content (to be avoided - see WP:EL), included material based on content from the City of London Corporation (not an independent source in the context of its chief executive), and material that was not about or directly related to Thomas's biography (several have no mention of Thomas at all) - they may be factual but they are of limited direct relevance to Thomas himself. The "thoughts on leadership" are, in my view, overly detailed and promotional - again some of the sources do not mention Thomas. If you want to discuss these matters further, I suggest you raise them on the article's Talk page for wider discussion with other editors. Paul W (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Clarity and accuracy

Hi Paul W - in December, you wrote on Talk: Ducera Partners#Revised request that you agreed with my proposed language for Ducera Partners, both for clarity and closer adherence to Wikipedia guidelines. I added the proper inline citations, as per the article author's request. As almost two months have passed since our exchange and no other editors seem to take issue with this language, would you mind taking another look and implementing this new version? I'll add that the new paragraph adheres to the timeline presented in the sources, stating that PWP first fired and sued Michael Kramer and his partners, and Kramer and his partners responded with a countersuit. The Wikipedia article erroneously presents the chronology as Kramer first suing PWP. This point is corrected in the language presented on the Talk page, which I've also included below, for your convenience:

Ducera was co-founded in 2015 by partners Michael Kramer, Derron Slonecker, Joshua Scherer, Agnes Tang, and Adam Verost. Kramer, Slonecker, Scherer and Verost had been colleagues at Perella Weinberg Partners, and were fired and sued by PWP, who claimed to have discovered their plan to leave and start their own firm. Kramer and his colleagues filed a countersuit for defamation and wrongful seizing of equity, in addition to denying their plan to leave. In 2016, the New York state court dismissed some of the compensation claims of Ducera's co-founders while allowing their allegations of defamation and interference of business prospects to move forward.

References

Thank you very much PD for Ducera (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I have implemented the suggested change (I welcome the removal of the refbombing), with some minor tweaks to reduce overlinking. Paul W (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Paul W, thank you very much for looking into this and cleaning up the language and references. I think there may be some confusion, possibly due to the long break in the discussion - I had intended for my suggested revision to replace most of the existing article, especially the "Background" section, as it focuses heavily on pre-Ducera events and not on the company itself, without inline citations. I tried to clarify this in a new edit request, if you'd care to take a look. Thanks again. Ducera499 (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Strange?

Rather your comment seems strange. It obviates repetition and unneeded wordiness. (I had thought of changing it to Westminster Abby, for a palace to palace, church to church, phrasing, but the brevity was better with my edit while basically saying the same thing). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The bit that was strange was "from the Westminster" - to me, it begged the question "the Westminster what?" If you meant Westminster Abbey, then say so. Paul W (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Ian Thomas CBE

@Paul W: thanks for your improvements to the Ian Thomas article. And, as always better to explain one's thinking, I have reinstated the CBE image given that, although not his day job, ceremonial does form an significant part of the Town Clerk's role (thus readers can easily recognise the relevant insignia).
Also perhaps the article should be renamed Ian Thomas (Town Clerk) from Ian Thomas (town clerk) as Town Clerk is his formal title pertinent to the City (& not an adjective)?
No biggie but be good to know what you think. Many thanks. Best Primm1234 (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Primm1234.

1. I think the article over-emphasises Thomas's CBE. It is unnecessary, in my view, to say that he may wear the insignia on ceremonial occasions (with two references that make no mention of him, but are just about public display of the decoration) - he primarily has an executive role in the City of London, only secondarily a ceremonial role.
2. Wikipedia article title conventions advise against capitalisation of job titles. Also his role as town clerk is only part of a longer local government career, and it would be wrong to title an article based on one spell in a particular role. I think the article might be retitled to use his middle name (to maintain the disambiguation from other people called Ian Thomas, and/or Ian C. Thomas). I have made this suggestion on the article Talk page.

Paul W (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Paul W: good points, well presented!
I totally agree no need go to town about his CBE award, so have just made a minor adjustment by putting it in his infobox. Hope this is a better way to treat this matter. Best Primm1234 (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

London location IP edits

Hello. Seeing you rolling back a clump of 2A00:23C5: edits on my watchlist, just a note that I'd moments ago started a thread at WikiProject London about these changes.

Do you think it's worth rolling them all back, if you aren't already intending to? Does seem that if some of these are obviously a bit wrong to people who know an area, they're likely to all be a bit wrong. Belbury (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Belbury. I have responded on the London Wikiproject thread. Paul W (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of National Specialist Contractors Council for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

LibStar (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Waypoint Entertainment

Hi Paul W, I work for the production company Waypoint Entertainment and have been working on a draft, here: Draft:Waypoint Entertainment. I see that you are an AFC reviewer, and I was hoping you might be interested in taking a look. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I've been working on this draft for a while and doing my best to learn from the process. I would love your feedback, and if you think it's ready, I'd be happy for you to publish it. Thank you, Fluffybunny789 (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Paul W, Thanks for the edits you made to the Waypoint Entertainment draft. Do you think that the draft is ready to publish? If so, I hope you'll consider publishing it, and if not, I would appreciate feedback on what else needs to be done. I appreciate your assistance, Fluffybunny789 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Fluffybunny789, I had a quick look at the article and I don't think it has advanced significantly since the October 2024 review by JSFarman. As they pointed out, the article needs more independent references (not drawing on company press releases) and significant coverage specifically about Waypoint Entertainment. For example, the first four references all clearly emanate from company PR; the fifth is an interview (generally not reliable per WP:IV); and currently I can find no significant coverage that would meet WP:GNG. It may be a matter of waiting until someone independently writes an in-depth profile of the business (WP:TOOSOON). Paul W (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2024 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors Annual Report Our 2024 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Introduction Membership news and election results Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page Closing words – Your Guild coordinators To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Footballer articles

Hi, I see you've been editing quite a few articles to remove the phrase "it wasn't until on". That's great of course, very happy to see someone doing this, but in case you are not aware, that that particular phrase is an unmistakable fingerprint of User:Timmy96, who is banned for sockpuppetry and for adding vast amounts of substandard material to articles about footballers. In all the cases that I have looked at, an article with this phrase in it will be better off if reverted to before the edits of the banned user. A truly excessive amount of work would be required to correct all of the errors in their additions. So you may want to consider simply removing all of their additions, rather than spending any great amount of time fixing the errors. 2A00:23C8:D30D:7C00:35DB:CEE0:91EE:DF70 (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I did look at reverting the user's wholesale addition of substandard material but "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually" - a laborious undertaking. I therefore looked to remove some of their changes, and not just the instances of "it wasn't until on". Paul W (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Mostly, the articles they have edited are extremely obscure footballers and most of the edits since the vast addition are just cosmetic. Up to you of course, but in the cases that I have looked at, I've felt that reverting entirely to before the additions is by far the best thing to do. The unfortunate choice is to either do a great deal of time consuming editing, or throw out improvements to remove the material simply. But personally I would argue that everyone's time is short and it's better to remove the crap entirely at the unfortunate expense of some subsequent improvements. Either way, glad to see someone attempting to fix up an awful mess. 2A00:23C8:D30D:7C00:710C:41DA:8057:A7C8 (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Charlton Athletic F.C.

Hello. Could we please try to reach a consensus regarding the Charlton page ? Please could you say why the page is better when in the future the ' History ' part of it is edited somebody shall now have to begin at the very top of the section, (at ' History '), when, for example, they may want to edit something several paragraphs lower, (say at ' SE7 Partners '), now that the means to edit those sections individually has been taken away. If you could tell me why the page is better regarding both our immediate and others' future convenience, I'd be grateful. Secondly, in a genuine attempt at accommodation, the interesting remarkable aside that promotion was secured twice, at odds of 92-1, 31 years apart, at the same stadium, Carlisle, (a factually accurate phenomenon), isn't noted particularly elsewhere that I have ever seen. No reason for either alteration having been given in the edit section, if, please, you could share the answers, both about the convenience, and the reason the History is more interesting without that aside, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Heath St John. Heath St John (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I see now that " Breaking (sic) the hierarchy of subsections " is the reason: thank you.

What does that mean, please ?

Secondly, are these " Hierachies " both unchallengeable and so unalterable  ?

Thirdly, who set these hierarchies, please ?

Fourthly, please could you say how a club can " Return (sic) to the Football League ", (as one sub-section's title claims), when they didn't leave it ?

Thanks very much. Heath St John (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Heath St John.

1. The structure of such articles is set out in guidance within the WP:WikiProject Football Manual of Style for clubs. It sets out a prescribed sequence of top-level sections (History, Colours and Badge, Stadium, Supporters, etc). The vast majority of Wikipedia articles about football clubs therefore adhere to this approach; typically their Histories are then subdivided into subsections, usually covering chronological periods of time from their foundation to the present day. This was what I was referring to by hierarchy - your edit broke away from the MoS and the agreed consensus that exists around the standardised top-level headings. If you feel this should be challenged or altered, then you should raise it in the Wikiproject Talk page so that it can be discussed prior to making changes to articles covered by the MoS.
2. Reading the detail of your query and looking at your past edits of the Charlton Athletic F.C. article, it looks like your view of the article's structure and editability is compromised by being viewed on a mobile Android device. When I view the article in a laptop browser, I can see options to "edit/edit source" at every level from the top-level History down. But when I view the article in the Wikipedia app on my Samsung tablet, I note the pencil edit symbol only appears against the top-level title, not the subsections underneath. The vast majority of Wikipedia edits are undertaken by users using a laptop or desktop, so they will not see what you believe is a constraint on editing the subsections. I guess this is something that should be raised with the developers of the Wikipedia app - it's not a reason to break the MoS structure.
3. Is the 'Carlisle aside' directly covered by a reliable verifiable source? If so, include it with the relevant citation. Otherwise, it would be a synthesis of facts and would be original research (WP:OR).
4. (And looking at your previous edits, reliable verifiable sources are also needed for the additions about British Pathe and Movietone News.)
5. I didn't create the subtitle, but I understand "Return to the Football League" to mean that Charlton returned to the EFL from the (separate) Premier League. I think that is fairly clear.

Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

That explains it all.

I was very interested to read that either no one else has noticed that editing isn't available on the sub-sections using a mobile, or they have, and haven't bothered to ask. Caring as I do, very, very much, and usually encountering the opposite attitude in life from people, I'm not surprised.

Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia app offers an "optimised and streamlined" approach (see Android FAQ). However, I think a large proportion of Wikipedia articles do not use subheadings at all, or they only subdivide relatively short 'Heading' sections, so it is not a major issue for most users. (As a Wikimedia UK trainer, I know we encourage people to use laptops or desktops when they attend Wikipedia editathons, as the browser-based environment offers finer levels of control than is possible via touchscreen mobile apps). Paul W (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

MacNolia Cox

MacNolia Cox is deleted G6. Please proceed with draft acceptance. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Whpq. Paul W (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)