This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

1. 4/6/2006-8/18/2006 2. 8/30/2006-10/17/2006 3. 10/19/2006-11/30/2006 4. 11/11/2006-12/15/2006 (Contains Critical Mass discussion) 5. 12/18/2006-2/23/2007 6. 3/21/2007-7/10/2007 (long absence) 7. 9/29/2007-1/15/2015 (long absence) 8. 1/2015-6/29/2015 9. 7/1/2015-2/1/2016 10. 2/1/2016-1/3/2017 11. 1/11/2017-6/5/2017 (RFA) 12. 6/21/2017-7/30/2018 13. 8/1/2018-4/28/2019 14. 4/29/2019-11/1/2019 15. 11/2/2019 - 12/31/2020 16. 1/1/2021 - 5/31/2022 17. 5/30/2022 - 4/30/2023

Hello,

Thank you for your feedback on the Ice Miller law firm page. I apologize for just now getting back to you, as I am a new Wikipedia user and did not see your message. In full disclosure, I am an employee of the Firm. I am interested in seeing the page restored, especially as several other large Indianapolis firms have similar Wikipedia pages. However, I understand I am close to the subject as an employee and would like to seek help on adding some unbiased content.

Per its articles for deletion log, there were concerns of blatant advertising, which is why I initially deleted the awards section. These were all verifiable awards, and can provide external links for them.

I am happy to work together to restore the page or provide additional sources. Let me know what first steps would be.

Tmeehan9 ( talk) 20:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@ Tmeehan9: Sources are the most important thing. If you want to give me some links to sources, and/or leads to offline sources I'll try to work on it in the first couple weeks of July. I'll try to check History of a Hoosier Law Firm out of the public library, but any other sources would be appreciated. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 20:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello there,

I really appreciate your willingness to take on updating the Ice Miller page! This got moved back on my to-do list, so I'm sorry I missed getting info to you in July.

Great source for basic Firm info for starters (revenue, profits, size, etc.): http://www.americanlawyer.com/law-firm-profiles-result?firmname=Ice+Miller&slreturn=20170711142802

For the history section, I recommend a copy of History of a Hoosier Law Firm - https://www.amazon.com/History-Hoosier-Law-Firm-Providing/dp/B000QM1JM0/. It was written by one of the firm's founding partners. I have access to this book if you cannot find it and need specific citations.

I think it's important to note the firm added a Philadelphia office, bringing total locations to 8 - http://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/43811

Below are corresponding outside sources for the awards listed, with updates to 2017.

·Recognized as Women in Law Empowerment Forum 2016 Gold Standard Firm - http://wileftribune.com/gold-standard-news/two-additional-firms-receive-wilefs-gold-standard-certification/
·Named to the "Best Law Firms" list by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers in 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014 - http://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/profile/ice-miller-llp/rankings/8233
·31 Ice Miller Attorneys and 7 Practice Groups Ranked by Chambers USA 2017 - https://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/firm/65407/ice-miller (Departments and lawyers available on the dropdown list on the side of the page)
·70 attorneys named to Super Lawyers 2016 lists in Indiana, Ohio and Illinois and 31 were named Rising Stars - http://profiles.superlawyers.com/indiana/indianapolis/lawfirm/ice-miller-llp/7bded3e8-e46c-45bd-a94c-d14c67a37cef.html
·In 2015, 2016 and 2017, Law 360 recognized Ice Miller as one of the 100 best law firms for women based on the firm's female representation at the partner and non-partner levels, and its total number of female attorneys - https://www.law360.com/articles/945879/the-best-law-firms-for-female-attorneys & https://www.law360.com/articles/784729/the-100-best-law-firms-for-female-attorneys & https://www.law360.com/articles/684237/survey-reveals-best-law-firms-for-female-attorneys
·In 2017, Ice Miller was named one of the "50 Best Law Firms for Women" by Working Mother and Flex-Time Lawyers - http://www.workingmother.com/best-law-firms-for-women-2017#page-4
·71 attorneys named to Super Lawyers 2015 lists in Indiana, Ohio and Illinois and 28 were named Rising Stars - http://www.superlawyers.com/about/digital_magazine.html (Each digital magazine on this page has a complete list of ranked lawyers)
·2015 Family Friendly award from the Ohio Women's Bar Association (OWBA)- http://owba.org/familyfriendlyaward
·76 attorneys named to Super Lawyers 2014 lists in Indiana, Ohio and Illinois and 27 were named Rising Stars - http://www.superlawyers.com/about/digital_magazine.html (Each digital magazine on this page has a complete list of ranked lawyers)

Below are awards I am currently working on sources for because things are archived or require a log in:
·All "Best Lawyers" Data before 2017 (To my knowledge, must have a bestlawyers.com login. I have access and may be able to get some info.)
·Chambers USA data from before 2017 (The website only cites 2017 data, https://www.chambersandpartners.com/USA/firm/65407/ice-miller.)
·Ice Miller was recognized as one of the "2015 Chicago's Top Ranked Law Firms" (by Martindale-Hubbell)
·Selected as a 2014 Top Workplace by The Indianapolis Star - Article called "Central Indiana companies lauded in Top Workplaces 2014 list" in The Indianapolis Star (online copy seems to be archived)

If there is another section you think that makes sense to include so we have additional content outside the awards section, let me know. Really appreciate you doing this!

Tmeehan9 ( talk) 20:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Please, can you help

I am using an old user name Rachelle Perlman, because of problems with laptop. My regular user name, when I am home and with no computer problems, is Henia Perlman.

I am new, and I read your interview administrator. I was blocked for not listening, not formating, not citing, disruptive behavior ...

I am an old widow with physical handicapped, and need your help with formating, checking relevancy of content ..., before posting to the talk board, as I accepted proposal one by Rivertorch, to discuss my proposals first with help, before posting them to the Talk page of the article. Option 1 was also supported by consensus, and suit me better, because of my physical handicap.

Please, review messages in my talk page, Holocaust Talk page, and administrators where I was blocked for 31 hours. I decided not to appeal that, for different reasons. Bloomington, Indiana, is a beautiful small city!

I also have aim; screen name: heniaperlman. Looking forward to hear from you. Rachelle Perlman ( talk) 23:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia is asking you if you can mentor her

Hi,

I have been reading and learning a lot. Rivertorch wrote that he can help me with general edits.

But, I think that I need a mentor, and I wrote to you after I read the content of your interview, when you had applied to be an administrator.

I thanked Carole Henson, who offered to help, and I told her that I would make my choices. Carole is the person who had submitted a request to block me.

I know that sometimes I don't express myself well, still I would truly appreciate it if you become my mentor. I am eager to learn, but I am a bit/lot slow - when the i-phone (I had the flip one) my son bought me rang, I went to a neighbor to ask how to answer. I am persistent in my endeavor to learn.

Looking forward to hear from you. Have a great day! Henia Perlman ( talk) 15:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Henia Perlman. I saw your earlier message and hadn't yet had a chance to look into your situation. If you are looking for a mentor I'll be happy to mentor you. Since you seem to be using two accounts, the first thing you need to do is decide which account you are going to use, Henia Perlman or Rachelle Perlman. As you can read about here, using multiple accounts is not normally allowed. You can put a note on the user pages of both accounts to the effect that you have edited under both in the past, and indicating which you will be using going forward.

Let me look into your situation a bit more tomorrow-from what I've seen so far you seem to have run into some problems on articles about the Holocaust, and there was an ANI, is that correct? You say you are having trouble citing sources, is this a technical problem in that you don't know how to cite them, or more of a problem identifying acceptable sources or remembering where you found information?

Again, I'm happy to help in whatever way I can. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 04:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting to mentor me.

I am now only using Henia Perlman, as I am traveling with my laptop, which was stuck with Rachelle. My daughter helped me out.

I don't even know how to go back to Rachelle, and I don't want to.

I was blocked for 31 hours for posting without citations, despite warnings.

I decided not to fight it.

My problem is technology, and formating citations - I am very slow in getting that.

I am considered an expert in Holocaust education, and its sources.

I decided not to edit for awhile, and focus on technology, wiki rules, and wiki culture.

Be very frank with me, as I am aware of my shortcomings.

Thank you again for agreeing to mentor me.

Looking forward to work under your leadership. Henia Perlman ( talk) 15:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia Perlman, ok, so I'm having a look around to see what's going on, and the first thing I notice is that you say your problem is technology and formatting citations. There are several different citation formats in use on Wikipedia, and it's typically up to the original author of a page which is used. You are trying to edit the article The Holocaust, which uses a rather complex citation format known as shortened footnotes. Shortened footnotes provide several advantages, but they are also complicated, and I don't like them and try to avoid them in articles I write because they make it difficult for other editors. Are you wanting to cite books and articles that are already cited in the article, or add citations to books and articles that aren't already cited? Also, I see a couple places you've mentioned that you have been a teacher and/or scholar involved in holocaust research for 20 years, so what sorts of referencing styles are you familiar with?

I also see on your talkpage where someone has suggested you attempt to get your feet wet working on related articles instead of the main holocaust page. I think that's a very good idea, partially because we could start getting you acclimated with an easier referencing system before moving on to shortened footnotes. Reading the talk page for the holocaust article I see that referencing issues don't seem to be the only thing people are having problems with about your edits, but I will say ensuring that your edits are well-referenced is a first step to solving those other issues as well.

I also see you have been using your sandbox to try to draft edits before posting them. I was going to suggest we do that going forward, and ensure they are ready to post, and discuss them with other editors if necessary, before you post them.

Where do you want to go from here? ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 00:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia is requesting your help in formuulating context for block

I would like to write to RickinBaltimore context that I perceive as not fair for blockage. I decided to do that, because 1) I keep receiving unsollicitated advices, mainly to deal with other articles, which I interpret as "stay away from the Holocaust article." 2. Mathglot wrote to me, after I stated that I won't edit the Holocaust but will post in its Talk page, that if I post in Talk page of Holocaust, I would likely be blocked.

If I am blocked again, I want to show that I didn't challenge the block, because I was just tired. That's why I would like to write to RickinBaltimore, that I didn't deserve the blocking, because of this context: I. Instance one where I posted without citation, and then I wrote to Carole: Thank you Carole for your help! I just reposted before I read the two above messages. Here your message for your kind formatting: In Shanghai, there were about 20,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe, because they could emigrate there without a visa.[1] [2] After the Wannsee conference, Hitler’s Germany sent SS-Colonel Joseph Meisinger, the “Butcher of Warsaw to Shanghai, Norman Goda The Holocaust: Europe, the World, and the Jews, 1918 – 1945 Pearson, 2013 p. 267. But, the Japanese government ignored the Nazis, and didn’t murder the Jews, Yehuda Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust 89 who left Shanghai after 1945. http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206019.pdf 2. Shanghai is not undue weight and sources mention it even in overview Thank you Carole! Henia Perlman (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Five minutes later, Carole requests to block me: Henia, I have been offering to format your citations for quite some time. You pushed ahead after the final warning and the messages here on the talk page. As you likely saw on your talk page, I have submitted a request to block your account.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

II. Second instance of posting without citation, but in lead, where citation are not needed, as I noticed per the current lead: Here the definition which I think better fit the body of the article, and was used by the US Senate, the ushmm, Elie Wiesel, Niewyk’s The Holocaust, 2003 (quite similar), Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Revision as of 13:46, 22 June 2017 (edit) (undo) (thank) Ealdgyth (talk | contribs)

You added (in the lead) a definition that is distinctly fringe and directly contradicts what's in the article body. You added it without any source. … is nowhere supported in the text of the article body and is not supported by any definition I've ever seen except on the very fringe of scholarship. … you continue adding information without sources … (This ignores the POV pushing of a definition not embraced by most scholars.) With all of those problems (and that's just scratching the surface), I've reverted you. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

? I stand by my comments above. :Ealdgyth|Talk]] 15:13, 22 June 2017 ( The lead does not NEED sources. … The definition is described in the section of the article titled "Definition". That's where the sources are. That's where the lead draws its information from for the definition. This is basic Wikipedia 101. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 22 June 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here Henia Perlman ( talk) 00:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2017 /info/en/?search=User:RickinBaltimore

ONUnicorn, I also just found out, that wiki used to have a lead similar to my proposal in 2014 - so my proposal was not fringe (besides that it is the accepted one in the usa, and this context is important in wiki)

I don't want to open ways to block me again, with statements that I was blocked in the past, and I didn't challenge it.

I would appreciate your wisdom and thoughts about the above, because I would like to continue to be involved in wiki, my hobby, and I feel, that with your mentorship, I can be successful.

Thank you. Henia Perlman ( talk) 00:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia Perlman,

My "idea" posted on your talk page was just that... just an idea, so that you could gain more experience on a topic of specific interest related to the Holocaust. That's all.

Regarding the block: I submitted a block request here for an ongoing set of issues. The people participating in the discussion didn't want to block you, but you backed away from the proposals presented and there was a group decision to block you. An administrator carried the block out. I am unable to block anyone... and couldn't have blocked you anyway, since I had submitted the warnings to you. The block has been performed and it's over with.

You've got a mentor, which is a good thing. I hope this situation works very well for you.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 03:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This is for Carole and ONUnicorn.

Carole, I made it clear that I would make my own choices, and not from people who were involved in my issues.

I would be more motivated to learn technology with the Holocaust article, and later, making useful contributions with reliable sources, because of my almost 20 years of academic experience in the subject.

I didn't "backed away from the proposals presented". I wanted time to think and I was very sick.

I am standing behind my decision to investigate the context of the block. There is better learning with understanding.

I agree not to edit for awhile, and I mentioned that I may want to post comments to help out - mention sources that Ealdgyth who is editing the Holocaust, couldn't find, to support statements in the article. Then, immediately, I received a notification, leading me to understand, that I would be likely blocked again, and forever, even if I only post in the Talk page of the Holocaust.

There was also the attempt to block me again, because of the use of two accounts (not malicious).

I have good faith that you Carole, and other people in wikipedia would see nothing wrong in investigating the context of the block, even if the block is over.

Thank you for you attention.

Have a great day!

Henia Perlman ( talk) 13:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia is asking ONUnicorn to help her with official investigation

My message to HJ MItchell. I will also apprecite your help.

"Henia Perlman is asking for an official full investigation

I am asking for a complete official investigation under the leadership of HJ Mitchell, of Carole Henson, Simon Irondome, Ealdgyth, and other persons who have been interacting with me, and involved in my blocking.

"We always must value the project as a whole more than we value the contributions of any individual editor. ... The best good will is for naught if a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation, and their cultural context are lacking."

I applaud the efforts and good will of Ealdgyth to read many books on the Holocaust, and almost single-handed editing the Holocaust article. I tried to collaborate and discuss issues with her. First, she said that the issue of the European Jewish refugees in Shanghai is U/W. Later she added about them, choosing to use an author who wrote one or two books on military of WWII (out of his 100 books), and is definitely not a Holocaust scholar. As per yesterday, despite my mention of it, the wrong name of the author is still in the bibliography. The statement about the European Jewish refugees in Shanghai should be changed, for the sake of the article. I provided Carole Henson at least three very reliable sources. My attempts to help out with with a better structure of the article, citations that Ealdgyth couldn't find (and nobody still didn't asked from me), and adding about the European Jewish refugees in Shanghaihas, are causing disruption. Carole Henson admitted that I have been making progress with technology.

I strongly believe in collaboration in editing. It seems to me that Ealdgyth's edits are reflecting a lack of "a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation, and their cultural context."

I strongly believe that a well-sourced and well structured Holocaust article, edited with a good spirit of cooperation, is more valuable than the contributions of one individual editor.

"We always must value the project as a whole more than we value the contributions of any individual editor." I know I am repeating myself. I do like this sentence, because it summarizes quite well the current situation and the real issues.

Carole Henson denied that Ealdgyth has been single-handed editing the Holocaust article, despite the fact that she had made about 40 edits in one day.

I do not dare posting to Talk of the Holocaust article, and provide the missing sources to Ealdgyth, because of veiled threats that I would be blocked forever from wiki. I believe them, since I have seen how some tried to exploit my innocent use of two names to block me for a second time. Now, I am being accused of being selfish, incompetent and rejecting the mentorships offered to me.

As Rivertorch understood quite well, I wanted a mentor who was not involved in my issues.

"Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten."

"I stick around because I want to help make the encyclopaedia even better than it already is." I think a full official investigation is needed. integrity, accountability, and confidence in Wikipedia are important. Thank you. Henia Perlman ( talk) 19:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

See comments [[ User talk:HJ_Mitchell#Henia Perlman is asking for an official full investigation– CaroleHenson ( talk) 19:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

As an FYI, I made an offer at User_talk:Henia_Perlman#An_offer.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 16:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

ONUnicorn,

Henia is not asking anymore for an investigation of Carole's actions.

I am spending my time learning as much as I can about Wikipedia, using links provided to me by Carole and others.

I am not editing.

I am just proposing changes in content, at Talk of Holocaust article, with reliable citations.

Please, let me know if you have more suggestions.

Thank you for being my mentor.

Cordially.

Henia Perlman ( talk) 22:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I just posted the following at adm.incidents:

"I continued reading articles in wiki, and those relevant to editors who are experts.

Mathglot, I found out that the lead in 2004 was: The word Holocaust (Greek, "a completely (holos) burnt (kaustos) sacrificial offering") was introduced in the late 20th century to refer to the attempt of Nazi-ruled Germany to exterminate those groups of people it found "undesirable".

I printed the 51 pages of the current Holocaust article, and read them.

I don't have the time and physical endurance to be involved.

Be well.

Cordially.Henia

ONUnicorn, thank you for your help.

Life is also accumulation of experiences.

Be well.

Henia Perlman ( talk) 04:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. May I ask, did Poll candidate search lead you to the Optional RfA candidate poll which lead you to RfA, or would you have lead yourself to RfA anyway? Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello ONUnicorn, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi ONUnicorn. Because it involves New Page and AfC reviewers along with other maintenance workers (SPI, COIN), an informal chat has begun on some aspects of paid editing. See Conflict of Interest - of a different kind. Please add your thoughts there. It is not a debate or RfC.
From WP:NPPAFC. Opt-out. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC) .

Hello ONUnicorn, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello ONUnicorn, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated Mount Tambora for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello ONUnicorn, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal ( submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde ( submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber ( submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 ( submissions) and 1989 ( submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce ( submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK ( submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning ( submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @ Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ONUnicorn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello ONUnicorn, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello ONUnicorn, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Unicorn

I see you had reviewed the page Prabhloch Singh. Now someone nominated it for deletion. Could you kindly review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisMr ( talk • contribs) 08:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The person who has nominated it for deletion unfortunately seems to be driven by ego rather than wiki policies. Need your help in all fairness buddy. ThisMr ( talk) 13:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello ONUnicorn, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 ( talk), Sturmvogel 66 ( talk), Cwmhiraeth ( talk) and Vanamonde ( talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I am not sure if you are the one who worked on the history section of the Education in Brazil page, but if you are, I was wondering if you still had the references for it. There are several paragraphs that are not referenced, and I would like to update it. Thank you! Kbell21 ( talk) 15:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 ( talk), Sturmvogel 66 ( talk), Vanamonde ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Just going through the list of admins from last year, and wanted to let you know that you are missed :) TonyBallioni ( talk) 06:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A year ago ...

so fix it!
... you were recipient no. 1664 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, Administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. —  JJMC89 bot 00:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 ( talk), Sturmvogel 66 ( talk), Cwmhiraeth ( talk), Vanamonde ( talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ( Purge)

Hello ONUnicorn, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the ' move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team  here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)