This user may have left Wikipedia. Rfassbind has not edited Wikipedia since October 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Nice work on Photovoltaic systems. All that info in the Overview section needs sources. If we can't come up with them, we should that content until we have it. Cheers. Joja lozzo 16:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I just wanted to say your edits over these last months have turned ' Growth of photovoltaics' into a really good article; I remember when it was much less extensive or referenced and I think named something else. Now it's all cohesively organized and very informative. Great work! TimeClock871 ( talk) 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I have brought up the following dispute that you are in, with the resolution board. /info/en/?search=Talk:Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#Wikitable_EROEI_-_energy_sources_in_2013 178.167.254.22 ( talk) 00:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
As stated on the dispute resolution board, seen as this part of my reply to you was getting a bit long. I've taken to instead replying to it here.
As for your, so called - "...comprehensive [but not peer-reviewed] criticism of Weissbach's study I found here". I don't really need to say anything on this non-peer reviewed, German state funded, author's attempt to critique the Weissbach ET AL. study. As thankfully someone already has taken that piece to task! Read Cyril R's reply found in that link, they expose each and every one of the the authors "criticisms" as fraudulent bias. As this section was getting a little too long, I cut my retort to the above link, and instead posted it on User:Rfassbind's talk page, which you can read there.
For an example of the bias in the arguments from that state funded website: They try and counter Weissbach et. al's assumed 60 year lifespan for nuclear plants by arguing - hey the oldest continuously operating commercial reactor is only 45 this year? With guess this, "Solar PV panels are [now being sold by manufacturers with a lifespan tag of] 35 years..." - Did you catch that? They give readers a demonstrated ongoing lifespan value(45+) and then throw in a paper calculated value, by the solar PV industry, of just out of the lab solar panels! Tell me, are the solar PV panels installed 1-10 years ago in Germany, even half way to the D. Weißbach et al. papers generously assumed 25 year lifespan for solar PV? Nope! Rfassbind, maybe you can help here, What is the oldest, continuously operating, and commercial Solar PV panel? The German state funded piece naturally(because of bias) shies away from being fair and doing an equivalence by giving readers the answer to that important question, obviously! These are the kind of basic arithmetic failures and displays of bias that Cyril R takes them to task on. While I don't doubt improvements are being made to Solar PV, and that's great, and hey sure maybe cutting edge panels are being sold with a manufacturers lifespan tag of "35 years", but don't forget, so are Generation III reactors being sold with "80 years" tags. So Weissbach et. al are hardly biased to have chosen an assumed 60 years for the majority of presently operating nuclear plants, and a very generous 25 years for the majority of presently operating Solar PV panels - even though the vast majority of installed solar PV panels are not even half way there.
Anyways as both Cyril R(and everyone else knows) the assumed 60 year lifespan for nuclear and ~25 year lifespan for solar PV are design lifespan assumptions based upon assessments done by, and stated by their manufacturers. Unfortunately Cryril R didn't link them to the oldest reactor still operating, which is the F-1 (nuclear reactor), an infrequently operated research reactor turned on in 1946. I'll let you figure out how old that makes it. P.S it's older than Weissbach et al's conservative 60 year lifespan for nuclear power reactors, with 1940s reactor technology. To be fair, how many of the solar panels from the 1980s are still in commercial operation Rfassbind? Are there any?
If you can show us just 1 example of a solar panel with german levels of insolation from the 1980s that has been continuously operating for even 25+ years(bonus points if they're still commercial) and still pumping out ~70% of its initial nameplate/day one, rated energy supply, then I'll concede that Weissbach et al. are biased against Solar PV. Until then, good luck. 178.167.254.22 ( talk) 06:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Above, an anon user disagrees with the 60-year figure for the life expectancy of nuclear reactors. The rant claims that solar PV power systems haven't yet proven their projected life expectancy of 30 years either. This comparison is inane. The operational lifetime for these two technologies depend on different things: while PV systems can run until they break down, nuclear power stations can't do that for well-known reasons. They are even being turned off way before they reach 60 years. In addition, here's a link to a PV-system from 1982. It's grid-connected, continuously-running for more than 30 years with an annual degradation of 0.5%. -- Rfassbind -talk 13:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorting by date doesn't work for month+year, only just for year. If you try to make descending sort of that column, it will sort the rows that have a year in a normal fashion, but will not sort the rows with month in it, so it becomes just useless. –– Georgij Michaliutin ( talk) 13:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I really liked your work on Comet. The image looks awesome now. Can you do that magic again on Dwarf Planet? Tetra quark ( don't be shy) 16:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I just added a 5-image-compilation on Dwarf Planet.
You recently added BrownDwarfComparison-pia12462 to the Brown Dwarf page. I think the image is incorrect (even though it's from NASA). The Sun should be about 10 times the diameter of Jupiter, but the image shows it only as about 5 times bigger. See Sol_Cha-110913-773444_Jupiter, further down on the page, for a better comparison. Tbayboy ( talk) 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thx, let me know if there's something I can do -- Rfassbind -talk 17:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You have been making global edits to the main table on List of possible dwarf planets. I agree with the substance of the edits, but there is an issue: that table is automatically generated from a program. This allows me to do easy updates from the sources (the Minor Planet Center TNO lists and Brown's Dwarf Planets list) without having to carefully look through the sources searching for changes. When you make a change to the table, I have to update the program generate matching text so that the next update doesn't clobber your changes. (I do an update about every month, so that the numbers in the table that come from those source, and the order of the entries, don't have to be managed by hand, and so stay true to the sources.)
See the discussion about it on the talk page.
The reason for telling you this is so that you don't waste too much time editing the table when a change to the program (followed by an update from the program) only takes me a few minutes. If you're just doing a global search+replace editor function then it's okay (doesn't take you any longer to do that than it does to explain the change it to me), but if you have to individually edit a lot of lines then it's better to do it through with the program. The following columns are NOT generated automatically from the sources, so you can changes the numbers/texts there with no issue: Measured Mass, Measured Diameter, Tancredi, and Category.
The program I'm using is a Microsoft SQL Server Express script (SQL source code). I can give you the source code if you like, but you need to have and know (a little) MS SQL Server Express (freely downloadable) to do anything with it. If you have a good working knowledge of any other SQL system, you can probably port it there, too, since it's a simple program (it doesn't do anything tricky).
Furthermore, please tell me if you know a place to keep this code on Wikipedia. I tried putting it on the talk page, but the code contains wiki-markup, so it blows up the page. I just did a quick, simple test. There must be a way to do it, but I'm not that fluent in wiki-editing.
Thanks, Tbayboy ( talk) 17:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
<pre>
tag helps to display the code line by line (without any wrapping of new-line characters){{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}}
allow you to collapse text-content (hide/show) in a "spoiler-box"→see
Template:Hidden begin<nowiki>
tag prevents wikipedia to parse the wikicode and displays the way it is on the website.Hi,
Thanks for your outside help mediating at dark matter. Wording disagreements are tough, since sources don't really have anything to contribute one way or the other, and it's certainly much ado about one word. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you have a "million" missing in your edit:
As per the World Coal Association: 1 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) corresponds to 0.697 tonne of oil equivalent (Mtoe)[24] As per the International Energy Agency 1 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) corresponds to 0.700 tonne of oil equivalent (Mtoe)[25]
? should be
As per the World Coal Association: 1 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) corresponds to 0.697 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe)[24] As per the International Energy Agency 1 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) corresponds to 0.700 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe)[25]
Or have I got this all wrong? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 11:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
This figure is inspired by a given source. The source indicates that the "Worlds power consumption is 16 TWy/y". This is equivelant to me stating that for my house the energy consuption is 20000 kWh/y. On your figure this has changed to "Worlds power consuption is 16 TW". Now, kW, TW etc is normally used to express power/leistung. To me it would be very unfamiliar to say that the power consumption of my house is 1950 W.
Can you explain to me why the unit is changed from TWy/y (energy per year) to TW (power/leistung)?
(Please answer on this page) Regards KjellG ( talk) 12:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
As of December 2015, unfortunately, I haven't received a feed-back from you, KjellG. But I noticed, that you instead removed the diagram we discussed above from the articles Solar energy and Renewable energy about two weeks ago. I have now reverted your removal and posted a comment on the talk page of the latter article. Please feel free to post your reply there, OK? This thread is now closed for consistency reasons, as it would be otherwise difficult for other editors to follow our conversation chronologically. Thx -- Rfassbind – talk 16:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Nrwairport (
talk) 06:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rfassbind, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sadads ( talk) 17:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rfassbind. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Sadads ( talk) 17:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. If you look at WP:Overlink it also says that we "do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on." That's a huge error on these articles. If it was one or two I would simply correct it, but I started to do that and realized there are hundreds and hundreds of links that simply go back to the same page. That can't happen and it needs to be fixed. If they don't have an article those minor planets need to be de-linked... all of them. That's why the tag is there. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.
Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!
https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H
Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship
Wuqi333444 ( talk) 05:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Something went wrong when you moved these old, improperly named minor planets:
to their correct, new destination, which excludes the "()". The history of the old pages did not get transferred to the new, so it will be harder for someone attempting to revert the new destination to make a proper article. I've put a note in my latest edit summaries to the new pages to identify this, but that's definitely not something we want to do on a large scale. And I put a comment inside the old to not categorize them, since they would then be duplicated in each of their categories. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 03:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
(num) name
articles. I always moved the redirected articles from their provisional to their formal designation. For the minor planet 5680 Nasmyth (1989 YZ1)
, which you listed above, I took a closer look:(num) name
to num name
versions, which, for the example above,
you already did.(num) name
designation, which, for the example above,
you already did, as well as adding a do-not-categorize-this-page comment on the bottom. However, I would rather prefer to entirely delete such pages. For several reasons I'll explain in detail if you disagree, deleting seems a better and much simpler solution to me. What you think?"(number) name"
nomenclature, with no one fixing it, while others continue to work on such wrong versions, these problems are prone to appear from time to time. After all I created (moved from provisional designation) the article 5680 Nasmyth
because it simply did not exist. I noticed this when I revised the "List of minor planets" (removing self-redirects). On that list, the article with the provisional was linked, so I updated the list adding the name and moved the redirecting page from provisional to final designation. Please let me know if you have any suggestions, because, on the circumstances described above, I will do exactly the same actions in my future revision over and over again. Thx --
Rfassbind
– talk 09:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)<!-- To avoid duplication, do not categorize this page. -->
note and remove all cats, unfortunately :/ ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 14:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Hi Rfassbind,
could you check something for me? I just wanted to create an article Walddrehna Solar Park for the German wikipedia, when I noticed a problem. After having done some research, I think that this solar farm and the Solarpark Heideblick are in fact the same solar farm. It seems to me that the latter has been created when there was only one part of the farm connected to the grid and then there has been created another article about the complet farm some month later. I'm not absolutely sure, so I would like you to confirm that. Maybe helpful: [1]. There's also another link, however the spam filter got active and prevented it. Also Google Earth does only show one solar farm in Heideblick. Greetings, Andol ( talk) 00:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rfass. I didn't know about this #R template until an administrator
closed the RfD on
12817Federica 3 weeks ago. I didn't see until 2 weeks later that it's actually used on over 1.2 M redirects... So it's kind of a big deal and is being used by the community (unlike
Category:Minor planet redirects, unfortunately). Now I include {{
R unprintworthy}}
when I make and/or fix existing #Rs. I see you've removed it on
20624 Dariozanetti and possibly others, though. I just want to let you know so we're not working against each other. Thanks. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 14:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm almost done moving pages out of Category:Palomar–Leiden survey into the discoveries categories above. Of the 73 that remain, 19 get flagged by my code as having a WP name != JPL name. In this case, the WP name has diacritics while the JPL name does not. I've seen you moving pages around to and/or from diacritics, so could you move these pages to ones without diacritics too?
After that's resolved, my code will distinguish between, and move PLS discoveries (asteroids with "P-L" on JPL) to Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden survey, and PLS known-objects (the 54 asteroids without "P-L" on JPL, like 6671 Concari) into Category:Palomar–Leiden survey catalog (tentatively named, and only after double checking that 6671, and others, are indeed part of the catalog). Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden survey will of course be a child of both Category:Palomar–Leiden survey catalog and Category:Discoveries by institution, and I'll put wording in there not to duplicate.
Here's the list of WP diacritics in PLS cats that need to be moved to non-diacritical names, per JPL:
Let me know if you don't have the time to move these, and I'll take care of them instead. Thanks! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Tom, most of these names with diacritics are correct. I will respond on the WTAstro thread you linked above. As for the discoveries by PLS, I've decided to withdraw and leave the field to you so we don't clash with different approaches. BR, Rfassbind – talk 00:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You should be able to recognizing discoveries by PLS as long as you check the provisional designation displayed in the parenthesis of the title of JPL's website. I came across this legacy-problem. (As multiple "institutional" discoverers do not exists). Also, for the PLS category, the Category:Discoveries by Tom Gehrels should always be added (there are, however, 2 discoveries credited to the van Houten's without Tom Gehrels – if you know/find out their designation, pls let me know). Note, that I created the categories Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden Trojan-1 survey, Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden Trojan-2 survey and Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden Trojan-3 survey, since, on second thought, I otherwise would have to re-visit newly created redirects, as I've already done extensively due to the "R unprintworthy" template and the "Minor planet redirects"-category. Rfassbind – talk 13:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
string externalText = Tools.GetHTML(JPL_URL);
in C# does the trick). I make the module skip pages with any unmatched authors, showing me what the unknown JPL discoverer string is. I take that string and update a spreadsheet which writes additional lines of a very long C# case-statement mapping JPL to WP, then iteratively run all the pages I skipped back through the module, gradually lowering the number of skipped pages until I'm left with a shortlist of people who've only discovered 1-2 asteroids, which I ignore.All objects currently associated with the Palomar–Leiden survey cats and the Trojan surveys cats are now sorted into their discovery and/or survey catalog cats. I made Category:Palomar–Leiden Trojan-1 survey catalog, Category:Palomar–Leiden Trojan-2 survey catalog, and Category:Palomar–Leiden Trojan-3 survey catalog to hold non-discoveries, which are parents to their respective discovery cats. I'll continue to search for PL objects as I progress through the MPs, and on pages I've already gone though. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm probably going to make this category to keep track of these annoying buggers, and more:
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I think I just bumped into such discrepancy at 23109 Yanagisawa ( JPL) vs 23109 Masayanagisawa ( MPC). I used the Template:R from incorrect name instead of one of the 3 mentioned above.
Thx Tom, for the JPL/MPC comparison. As you know probably know, I did a check on Wikipedias Minor planet list versus their corresponding MPC's lists (i.e. Discovery Circumstances: Numbered Minor Planets, such as (1)-(5000) and (5001)-(10000)).
Thx, Tom. About JPL vs MPC sources for names: Here are two explicit examples:
It seems that the MPC is too much of a chicken to really address the issue. Instead, they offer different versions, without being explicit. Well I won't go too much into detail, so:
On wikipedia, for non-diacritical-aliases, e.g. 12638 Fransbruggen, it seems helpful to reference their correct diacritical version 12638 Fransbrüggen, as they both are redirected to the list of minor planets. That's why I add the "{{R avoided double redirect|12638 Fransbrüggen}}" to keep the connection. The issue for the three different types of apostrophes and hypen/enDash versions are only partially handeled.
Note: I will use Template:R from incorrect name for wrong names on JPL (uncorrected erratas of first MPC circular publication) until you tell me a different tpl.
Question: Is it correct to remove the cat "Main-belt asteroids" when there is a category such as "Flora asteroids"? (I saw a few changes). Please tell me / give me a link, so I don't need to do corrections. Also, the sort key for the Category:Minor planet redirects is probably the ASCII version of the article's name, not the article's name itself (as it say in your description), correct? Pls let me know, and if you have made up your mind, you could tell me whether you prefer uppper-case on the sort-key's first letter only or not. Thx Rfassbind – talk 09:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
'
) as long as they're not the 2nd character in the key (all of the details are listed in
WP:SORTKEY). I updated
Category:Minor planet redirects text with this.I have to side with the MPC db on this, the Julian day#Variants section, and Epoch (astronomy), which all use DMY/YMD/variants to refer to epoch, and the large number as the JD. I'm making a program to update {{ Infobox planet}} orbital parameters from JPL (since I've lost access to the MPC) and will likely adopt MPC (and our) notation (JPL is often not as careful as the MPC, as we all know!). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 22:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Epoch 13 January 2016 (JD 2457400.5)
Epoch 2457400.5 · JD 13 January 2016
Epoch JD 2457400.5 (13 January 2016)"
?|epoch=13 January 2016 ([[Julian day|JD]] 2457400.5)
is how the first 15 MPs do it (with the exception of
3 Juno), so I will most likely base my code off of that. I'm still going to look through a larger sample of low-numbered MPs (maybe 30-50 total) before deciding, but this is definitely the standard so far.I posted it here: User:Tom.Reding/List of JPL & MPC discoverer aliases, in case it's of any use. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
While going through and updating MPs' infobox data from JPL, I'm finding some inconsistencies in color (I thought all MPs were |background=#FFFFC0
). For the inconsistent ones, I looked back to see how long they had been a different color and saw you were involved with most of the ones I've come across (only a narrow sample at the moment). I also vaguely recall someone talking about developing a color scheme for MPs (was it you?). Do you know the result of that discussion, and should I or shouldn't I be using |background=#FFFFC0
for all infoboxes? Thanks. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 14:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
|bgcolour=
(deprecated) to |background=
, and I've only added the default color to uncolored infoboxes (checking & coding for the color scheme, however, doesn't sound enjoyable to me so I'll leave that to you). ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 13:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been copied directly from http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-540-29925-7_6276, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. — Diannaa ( talk) 14:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Part of your addition to 5028 Halaesus has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material from here to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you've got some evidence that these descriptions are in the public domain, please present it. The Springer page is clearly marked as being copyright. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa ( talk) 13:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm finally getting down to the finer details of MPs' infobox standardization:
 
to its unicode character, but the unicode char is harder to see and/or confirm that it's there, so I'm going to go back and un-unicodify back to  
.
 
between all numbers/values and their <ref>
/{{
efn}}
s, as long as  
or
<ref>
/{{
efn}}
s at least 40% of the time in the infobox. This is all written down on the
code page, points 2.4 and 2.5.| observation_arc = {{nowrap|### yr (#### days)}}
has no effect on the rendered infobox, so I'm not using {{
nowrap}}
. I think it was used as a legacy work-around, back when/before |width=
was deprecated. The infobox now does a good job of managing its width.
s. Testing this on a few MP infoboxes with many, many parameters, I actually do like the trailing-
option, since it effectively removes whitespace between the name of the parameters on the left and the parameter values on the right, without changing the width of the infobox (until a certain threshold is crossed). I have seen that being done. Were you involved with that? If so, what did you use as your desired infobox width and what method(s) did you use to calculate the width of the existing text? I'll probably be able to replicate that in C#, since there are functions to calculate the width of rendered text; I just don't know if they'll work in AWB yet (dependencies, etc.).|discovered=
since it will never need to be updated. I'll put a comparison together in my userspace and see if there's any support for it. (Discussion
here)|label_width=
. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 16:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)|observation_arc=
& |period=
).|period=
, I've been wikilinking
d to
Julian year (astronomy), since the best description of a Julian day as used here, that I could find, is in the lead of
Julian year (astronomy).What do you think about these? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 13:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I am nominating
template:source for discussion. Apparently you used the template meant for
template:code. Can you change from {{source}}
to {{code}}
? I appreciate that. By the way, I invite you to the discussion at TfD.
George Ho (
talk) 04:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 5254 Ulysses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ulysses. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This MP desperately needs your help! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help with that page. I am a real novice to Wikipedia so I really appreciated your input. Jamaica solar ( talk) 14:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Some recent edits have been done to this page that, seem to me to introduce inconsistencies in the layout. In particular, the table of "Top countries for 2015" would be better placed under the sub heading "Deployment by Country" and follow the pattern of subsequent years. I would attempt it but, being a novice and seeing where many of the edits in 2015 were done by you, I would prefer to defer to your expertise. I notice also that most, if not all the forecasts for 2016 are now out so, the forecast section appears a little outdated. Again I would do some updates but, do not have the confidence that I would do as good a job as you have done. Jamaica solar ( talk) 16:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Something is weird and possibly broken in your post on my talkpage. If I try to respond as I normally would I seem to break it and my text gets put in the middle. What sorcery is this? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 04:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
FYI I'm thinking about moving the newest table header
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="min-width: 80%;" ! colspan=2 | Designation ! colspan=2 | Discovery ! rowspan=2 | [[:Category:Discoverers of minor planets|Discoverer(s)]] ! rowspan=2 class="unsortable" | Ref |- ! style="min-width: 100px;" | [[Minor planet designation|Permanent]] ! style="min-width: 60px;" | [[Provisional designation in astronomy|Provisional]] ! [[:Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery|Date]] ! [[:Category:Minor-planet discovering observatories|Site]]
into {{ List of minor planets/header2}} so it's easier to mass-update and should save ~4.5 kB from the edit window. This'll probably impact your discoverers update, so let me know if you want me to hold off. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 12:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's still useful to have some basic bottom-navigation on the LOMP & MOMPN pages (especially since you're filling out each LOMP to its intended size (1000)). I've seen editors add meanings-info to the numbered list instead of the meanings-list, so having a meanings-link in the ==See also== & {{ MinorPlanetListFooter}} is ok by me. The footer also provides a link back to the master index. For ultimate redundancy, maybe we can add your "Back to top" button to the footer template? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
(merging
10 subpages into main list (10×100→1000)
"do-not-show-back-to-top-link=yes"
- parameter type of option the first table header of the page could be prevented to display a back-to-top-link.''example of a back-to-top link, placed in the header of each section (equivalent to a version where the link is actually part of the "header2" template) == 420901–421000 == {{Anchor|901}} {{float|[[#top|back to top]] [[File:WWC arrow up.png|link=#top]]}} {{clear|right}} {{List of minor planets/header2}} |-
What's your take on this, Tom? Rfassbind – talk 19:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
|top-link=no
.I agree. Since you introduced templates, changes only need to be done once; and we always can modify it as we go along.
I'm a fan of large and complete rather than fragmented but incomplete categories, so a single "Category:Named minor planets" would be fine by me. Also, I created MP#R for all named bodies, this category would be complete (and in fact would help to spot any missing items). What is your thought on this. Rfassbind – talk 10:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for bad English. One of the two transwiki go in German wiki at the voice " https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsuneo_Niijima": this it's right or not? 84.253.136.14 ( talk) 08:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Since it was said several times in the first CfD that "it will be populated in the near future", and that the CfD was recently relisted, I'm willing to populate it as a means of potentially swaying votes to the keep side. Do you have, or can you make, a list of asteroids named as an award and I (or you, or we) can populate it? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Tom.Reding:: Done the "mentors" are now separated from the finalist/awardees. See Batch A and B. They contain close to 400 items in total. As far as I'm concerned, the mentors could be placed into a subcategory of the awardees (and they themselves into a ISEF / Broadcom MASTERS subcategory later). Rfassbind – talk 00:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Added new items to list Batch E and F (+26 finalists; +1 mentor). Rfassbind – talk 14:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I just voted below you in a CFD. I use this syntax highlighter, and your signature caused it to highlight everything below your signature, making the highlighting useless. Could you please move the opening <em> to the beginning of your signature? The highlighter expects html tags and link markup to be closed in the reverse order they are opened. Thanks. kennethaw88 • talk 07:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Someone's created a new page at Asteroid 17473 Freddiemercury. Isn't that against Wikipedia naming policy for minor planets? 2.99.207.130 ( talk) 20:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Template:Astro list redirect comment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ppp ery 02:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
→ See result of the discussion here. Rfassbind – talk 00:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed this subsection—I think I helped contribute to it since I only added {{
Redirect category shell}}
where there were 2 or more {{R}}s, and not when there was a solitary {{R}}. Want help fixing them? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 11:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
{{NASTRO comment|do-not-cat=yes|r-templates=off}}
, which have turned off the standard templates. So instead of removing the shell, I added {{
R unprintworthy}} to it. Besides those, I didn't find any shells with a single-{{R}}. Hope that makes sense to you,
Rfassbind
– talk 13:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
R to diacritics}}
doesn't apply when there is a {{R avoided double redirect}}, I understand that this technically correct, and that you have done a revision on October 4, removing said rcat such as in
here (btw: is there a bug in your anchor generation? it has four digits), so sorry if I have coincidentally interfered with a recent revision of yours I wasn't aware of. As for your offer, the answer is now obsolete and I thank you for your help.essentially the same page name with diacritical marks), it's technically incorrect to put it on an #R pointing to a List of minor planets (LoMP) though, so any r-template gnome would have no reason to hesitate taking it off, and the argument for keeping it is very specific to WP:AST. The best way to make it permanent, and self-consistent, is to find an R-template that suits our needs, or to make one:
The correct form is given by the target of the redirect), and would be used for actual MP misspellings anyway. The only MP#Rs that could legitimately contain {{ R from modification}} are secondary MP#Rs to the LoMP. Any other MP#Rs with this {{R}} that don't point to the LoMP (i.e. they point to the developed diacritized article) can be easily searched for and corrected.
to a more common variation).
to a title with differences that are non-ASCII symbols).
Good lord... ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 14:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Why remove values for |moid=
, |jupiter_moid=
, & |tisserand=
? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 12:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
|mean_motion=
parameter), some other differences I had to ignore in order to keep my frustration level low. The
minimum orbital intersection distance is such as difference:
|jupiter_moid=
, which is only used for JTs, CEN and outer main-belts (JPL definition) and has a limit at 0.95 AU|tisserand=
; but it is never displayed when the value is significantly above 3.We're gonna have to carefully reapply the <noinclude>
& <onlyinclude>
tags so that the 1000s MoMPs work with the 10,000s MoMPs (i.e.
Meanings of minor planet names: 220,001–230,000 is quite a mess atm). I can help later this week if needed. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 12:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
Meanings of minor planet names}}
amended (or dropped). The 10k pages are another complexity that is not appropriate. If you think it is better the keep them (adding a list of 10 partial MoMP lists), rather than redirecting or deleting, then I'm fine with it, but the non/onlyinclude tags really have to go. Instead the 1k-lists need fixing and updating, what I am about to to as soon as the syntax is consistent.
Rfassbind
– talk 12:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
onlyinclude
tags to display the page correctly. Your edits have placed a large number of new pages in the category
Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. I don't know what's the proper fix, whether it is to undo your changes that added section headers, or reintroduce onlyinclude tags. Let me know if you need more context into the issue... I personally don't know what the correct fix is. —
Andy W. (
talk) 15:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
Meanings of minor planet names}}
) will be taken care of. As for the category "DEFAULTSORT conflicts", I didn't change anything, but it seems obvious to me that this "confilct" is due to fact that the one and only existing category has its individual sort key already defined (see below). So either this sortkey or the {{DEFAULTSORT}} line has to be removed in order to fix it.
Rfassbind
– talk 16:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC){{DEFAULTSORT:Meanings of minor planet names 392001-393000}} [[Category:Lists of meanings of minor planet names|392001-393000]]
{{
Meanings of minor planet names}}
are removed, then the 36 pages won't be linked-to at all. I don't know what to do best with these pages: delete, redirect, or turn into a list of links, as, for example, in
List of Jupiter trojans (Trojan camp). Also each table header in pMoMP now links to
List of named minor planets (alphabetical), which, I think, gives a much better overview (not just over a number range of 10K but, "good lord", over a much larger range). Pls, let me know what you think. Converting the pages to a "link-list" may not upset the original creator of these (no obsolete) pages as much as a deletion...
Rfassbind
– talk 16:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The Banstar Barnstar | ||
A long-overdue award for multiple temporary bans from the MPC database, and probably others! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, Rfassbind. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
hi I would like to suggest that your figure "Price history of silicon PV cells since 1977" would provide more information about recent years if the vertical scale were logarithmic, like the two panels below yours in Solar cell#Declining costs and exponential growth. Of course, such a change will soon be unavoidable! Thanks! Layzeeboi ( talk) 07:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it is a main-belt asteroid so I don't understand why you moved it from the category of main-belt asteroids. You can find this classified as a main-belt asteroid on IAU Minor planets Excuse me if I'm wrong. JohnSmith678 ( talk) 15:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Please don't canvass editors to vote with you in AfDs, like you did Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#AfD Pronunciation of Trojan asteroid names. Leaving a neutral message at a relevant Wikiproject is no problem, but yu shouldn't post messages stating everything that is right with the article and wrong with the AfD, and then asking people to "take a look". Fram ( talk) 14:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You also shouldn't create pages like User:Rfassbind/Pronunciation of Jupiter trojans, as this is a copyright violation. Copying within Wikipedia but without attribution is not allowed. Fram ( talk) 14:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rfassbind, Thanks for your edits to the Société Ramond page, very helpful. May I ask just one thing; why have you renamed the page? Most of the references I've seen to it are to the French name, and if you look at Category:Learned societies of France you'll see that most French learned societies retain their French name. Is there a WP policy about this, or is it done on a case-by-case basis? Regards, Ericoides ( talk) 05:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Rfassbind, I just found the diskussion about my updating of the Orbital parameters of the planets. Did you read this talk too? I agree when you say, that there were maybe to many diggits behind the comma, but instead of deleting the unnecessary diggits you reverted all the other aspects of my edits too, everything! like * the references are not anymore in the articel e.g. Jupiter, * the adjustment of the order of the pamater in the code and in the one in the article e.g. Saturn, * the updating of the values e.g. Uranus, * better number format e.g. Mercury) And yes, in my refs there were missing epoch, date and access-date, but is this a reason to revert all the work I did? Your reverts took 5 min, my edits 3 hours. Now it is too difficult to reactivate my edits with less diggits,.. there are to much edits since than. You wrote I'll revert and ask W like wiki – did I miss something on my talk page? This way of working makes me sad. Regards, -- W like wiki ( talk) 02:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC) (Sry for my poor English)
I know I'm probably the only one watching the Martian crater pages, since I created them, but holy crap that's a lot of notifications! Thanks for doing this, even if it blows up my inbox (at least I know they're all the same and can basically ignore them). Primefac ( talk) 11:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Each of the files I removed ( File:MinorPlanet-2007uk126-19970930.gif, File:2010EK139-OCKS-KBO3.gif, and File:2003 EL61 Haumea, with moons.jpg) from List of trans-Neptunian objects is licensed as non-free content which means that each use of the file needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. You can see this by going to each file's page and looking at the licensing being used. None of these files are licensed as Template:PD-USGov-NASA and none of them list NASA as the author. Official NASA websites (like other official government websites) do sometimes host photos created by others, and these files are not always in the public domain.
It's possible that they were uploaded under the incorrect licensing, and if you clearly believe this and are able to show this (i.e., provide a proper search showing they are public domain, and that NASA is the copyright owner, etc.), then you can change the files' copyright tags to something more appropriate. If, however, you just think they are likely public domain but aren't 100% sure, then you can (1) ask for feedback at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC, or (2) start a formal discussion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I saw you were able to delete 47171 Lempo when it was mistakenly #R'd to 47171 Lempo-Hiisi. Where were you able to request permissions to do that? Very useful! I've put in my fair share of G6s & C1s recently, so this looks quite appealing. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear Rfassbind, I just corrected an edit you had made to the article 385446 Manwë in March 2017. It seems you had changed the orbital elements to those of asteroid 12345 (1993 FT8). Since the change (which went unnoticed for 8 months) seems rather odd, I want to make sure I don't miss something (after all, it is 3 o'clock in the morning here so I may just need some sleep). Renerpho ( talk) 01:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
&query=1
to the URL forces JPL's Search Engine to display the results rather than the query form). Why is it funny that there's no article for
(12345) 1993 FT8?
Rfassbind
– talk 03:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Rfassbind. 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, Rfassbind.
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, |
Hello Rfassbind. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various
deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at
page reviewer talk.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih ( talk) 18:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rfassbind,
as someone who used to visit that page quite often, I was deeply disappointed with the result of your big edit in october, which as I understand it completely replaced the tables that are the heart of this article, omitting information I consider crucial - namely the objects' orbital elements. I always found it most helpful to sort these tables by average orbital distance (and wished I could have merged them for this purpose), and quite enlightening to compare their other orbital elements. As they are now, I find those lists very uninteresting and wish they would revert to their former contents.
I would really appreciate it if you found a way to restore those tables to their original functionality! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.179.147.92 ( talk) 04:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Outreach and Invitations:
{{subst:NPR invite}}
. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.New Year New Page Review Drive
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I think your map of PV watt per capita in Europe ( commons:File:Europe WattPerCapita animated sequence 2008-2013.gif) is very nice and useful. However, it has not been updated since 2014. Are you planning to add 2015 and 2016? I understand there has not been such a fast growth in Europe recently, but I think it's nice to have updated images anyway. Also it would be better to change the title to reflect the eventual updates in the future (that is, remove the years). Let me know how can I help in case. Thanks! -- Ita140188 ( talk) 09:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Rfassbind.
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project,
AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. |
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 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
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)
FYI someone is having a go at turning this former #R into an article. It's not on the #R shortlist nor a candidate #R, but perhaps it's on one of your todo lists :) ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 04:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Backlog update:
New Year Backlog Drive results:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
A question. In your latest edit of near-Earth object, you consistently changed "km" into "kilometers" resp. "m" into "meters". Why is that? I thought using symbols is OK in line with this passage in MOS:UNITNAMES: "symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use". Rontombontom ( talk) 10:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Looking at
Meanings of minor planet names: 374001–375000 & the top of
List of minor planets: 374001–375000 makes me want to center everything... Would that mess anything else up for you? The only place it might not look good is on
List of minor planets#Orbital groups, but parameters can be made that default to margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;
(
centered) if not specified, and % based left and right alignments otherwise. It might even look better left-justified or centered on
List of minor planets. What do you think? If done, then I would followup with centering the corresponding TOC templates of course. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 23:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
Happy template editing! Swarm ♠ 02:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
There is some confusion about asteroid discoverers named Lopez because there are 3 people bearing that name. So the table you added in Álvaro López-García article is wrong, he actually discovered 12 asteroids only (in cooperation with H. Debehogne). 2nd one is Àngel López, according to my calculation he discovered 58 asteroids, 3 by himself and 55 in cooperation with R. Pacheco ( here is his site with asteroid table). 3rd Lopez is Jean-Marie Lopez (J.M. Lopez), he discovered only 4. Even MPC calculated number of their discovereries incorrectly. Can you check it and correct these tables accordingly? I think tables in Álvaro López-García and Àngel López articles on Polish wiki where I edit are correct Pikador ( talk) 12:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The Lopez situation should be resolved now:
Plz let me know if something is still missing, Rfassbind – talk 01:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Paid editing
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
News
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged
Charles William Shoppee for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.
The page is a redirect, not an article. I'm confused as to why you are marking it as such.
As for the article, well, I'm working on that.
Pdfpdf (
talk) 03:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: /info/en/?search=Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{ infobox ship}} is parsed).
If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.
Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Template:Mpf has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Huntster ( t @ c) 00:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Deletion tags
Backlog drive:
Editathons
Paid editing - new policy
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Not English
News
Hello Rfassbind, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
No, I rather not edit already made pages. That defeats the purpose of what im doing. Im trying to eduacate people on things that has very lityle information. Not ones that need more editing . FLuca89 ( talk) 17:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind, just noticed you were editing the categories with the minor planet pages between 300 and 400. However, I noticed that a few of these pages in this range had an irregular sort as DEFAULTSORT:0003XX instead of the normal DEFAULTSORT:Name-of-the-minor-planet used by the rest of the pages. Since you're presumably pretty busy with all the other amazing edits you've been making on these pages, would you want me to make these DEFAULTSORT corrections, or were you already going to (while making the Category:Background asteroids edits, etc.)? Paintspot Infez ( talk) 02:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed the table had a problem with the leftmost column, and took a stab at fixing it per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial. Please take a look at my version and let me know what you think. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 06:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
Largest Jupiter trojans}}
: I think there is a misunderstanding. This is not a bug but a feature which allows the table to be sorted by the three different surveys (size estimates) while the
static ranking column remains unchanged.
Rfassbind
– talk 10:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Do you have any ref about the change name of the association? Because I have never seen the association called "Amateur Aastronomers" anywhere, and it's not it's name.
I think even in english texts the name is always the original one -Asociacion Argentina "Amigos de la Astronomia"-. [2]
Regards! -- JoRgE-1987 ( talk) 22:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello Rfassbind, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
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.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Your AWB access request has been completed successfully. Please be sure to review Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser carefully before using. — xaosflux Talk 16:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hyperbolic asteroid 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/Hyperbolic asteroid 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. wumbolo ^^^ 12:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Edits like this one at 212977 Birutė make performing a null edit on corresponding {{ r avoided double redirect}}s such as 212977 Birute necessary to clear them from CAT:AVOID2RUPDATE. What is the purpose of your "temp wikidata" edits? Best regards, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 04:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
{{#invoke:ResolveEntityId|entityid|<page name>}}
to resolve WP pages to their associated WD QID. E.g. {{#invoke:ResolveEntityId|entityid|Ceres (dwarf planet)}}
-> Q596. I've customized this to provide wikilinks to both the WP and WD pages, for convenience, and some additional info, at
Module:Sandbox/Tom.Reding/Tools. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 21:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)The Categorisation Barnstar | ||
For your tireless contributions to many minor planet articles. Hadron137 ( talk) 16:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC) |
Just wondering why if you thought I did something wrong you didn't come talk to me back in February and waited until now tell someone else that you thought I handled something poorly? ~ GB fan 10:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I actually misclicked rollback on your edit . Sorry for the inconvenience. Kpg jhp jm 11:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Truly just curious here, why are you removing the redirects? 48767 Skamander for example. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 20:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I just noticed that if all goes according to plan, Hayabusa2 will bring asteroid samples back to Earth in 2020 and will still have 30 kg of xenon propellant left for its ion engines to flyby another target, tentatively: asteroid 172034 2001 WR1 ( [3]) in 2023. Although it is a plan that may or may not take place, it would be nice to have an article on this asteroid, if you have the interest and time. I have no experience creating articles for minor planets so that is the reason I contact you. Thank you. Rowan Forest ( talk) 00:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello Rfassbind, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
As of 21 October 2018 [update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
For excellent contributions to the Wikipedia, especially in regards to outer space. Fotaun ( talk) 20:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC) |
Hello, Rebestalic here again. Expanding on my reply to your post on my talk page--what would you like me to do? Should I revert all my changes to the minor planet articles or should I remain stationary? Thank you, Rebestalic ( talk) 21:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello Rfassbind,
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Rfassbind. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
See also the list of top 100 reviewers.
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind! I just noticed there's a category Category:Unclassifiable asteroids (Tholen), with 1566 Icarus as its most prominent member. I can not find anything regarding this in the article text, nor do I see any sources (outside of Wikipedia) indicating that Icarus's spectrum is beyond what Tholen can handle. What's the purpose of that category? Same for unclassifiable asteroids (SMASS). Renerpho ( talk) 10:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
---
has been replaced with ***
.
Rfassbind
– talk 11:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Hey, just wanted to let you know on the page of 2019 AQ3, that I would prefer in the spirit of scientific accuracy if the size inaccuracy of 2019 AQ3 was properly represented. While we have 2 'approximate' measurements of its size, from the MPC and an almost public-end site, neither of them are using any more data that they personally have access to than we do. I'm not sure where the ESA gets its size measurement from but I'm assuming it's a very generic one on average asteroid size, but I do know for sure that the MPC only marks asteroids as being 1 km+ if they have a possibility of being that large, not necessarily a firm size constraint. Currently the best I can say to constrain the diameter is that it's between ~500 and ~1800 meters, and anyone currently claiming to have a more accurate diameter than that is making completely unfounded assumptions. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 21:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Because it's now become notable (since it's involved in the largest asteroid-to-asteroid collision in recorded history), the article 6478 Gault was apparently recently created. I've tried to help add missing categories and template, but I know I didn't get everything. Since you're one of the main editors of minor planet pages and ensuring they're consistent, you might want to take a look at (or possibly revise) this awkwardly cobbled-together asteroid stub (especially since it's become a bit of a popular-ish article). Paintspot Infez ( talk) 03:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The minor planet category continuity situation is currently pretty confusing. I have no problem with the categories' use & descriptions as they are (they are definitely an improvement), but retaining the history, and retaining the correct/appropriate histories could be improved. Laying this out as systematically and neatly as I can:
Re: use of "object" in the new cat names. What do you think about this hierarchy:
If we decide to remove "object" from the cat names, I think I can round-robin move all of them around to make all (or nearly) of the above changes. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 23:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I might help you with your confusion.
Hey, wanted to run the idea by you since you seem to be a primary contributor to the article. I was thinking of reformatting Asteroid family so that more data would be easily searchable/sortable: Basically a sort of info table with stuff like a,e,i,age,members etc, as right now it seems to only serve as a cursory summary of asteroid groups when adding more detailed info would likely take up just as much space. What are your thoughts/input into crating that? exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 00:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
So, this is a very correct assessment by you on the matter. The situation is not helped by the fact that I am the one why created the redirect at the Italian Wikipedia. I am unsure how I can improve the our coverage of the subject, however. I would like find some way to write in the limited amount of space available that 175563 Amyrose is named after her. I can't find a good way to do that. Do you have any suggestions? Pls Ping Response― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 00:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Rfassbind. I see that you reverted my single table of asteroids for each discoverer. I believe that having multiple floating tables is not a good idea, for multiple reasons:
If you really want multiple columns, then I would suggest abandoning tables and using {{ div col}} and {{ div col end}}. The nice thing about these templates is that they can adapt to the width of the user's browser. The sad thing about these templates is that they cannot represent the three separate columns that you have now: you'd have to do something like '''[[2430 Bruce Helin]''', 8 November 1977, {{LoMP|2430|list}} {{ref label|codisc|A|}}
If it were up to me, I would go back to the single table and three columns. What do you think? — hike395 ( talk) 03:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately
1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news –
subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, re. your Template:Largest Jupiter trojans, the figs indicate that IRAS and Akari have the sizes down to the nearest 10m, and WISE to the nearest meter. That is, of course, not true. Could you either include the margins of error, or round off to the number of significant figures? Thanks — kwami ( talk) 05:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
A majority of articles on individual Jupiter trojans, specifically in the Orbit and classification section, include "...ahead of the Gas Giant's orbit..." or "...behind on the Gas Giant's orbit...". These don't seem grammatically correct, as "Gas Giant" should not be capitalized. "Behind on the..." also doesn't seem right, and I suggest changing that to "Behind its", referring Jupiter as "it". There is also another issue with L5 Jupiter trojans, where "trailering" is used instead of "trailing". I've edited some Jupiter trojan articles although there is much more remaining. I'm not sure if you had not noticed this mistake during your revisions on these articles. Nrco0e ( talk) 02:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250
Stay up to date with even more news –
subscribe to The Signpost.
Go
here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) on behalf of
DannyS712 (
talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Rfassbind noticing the external links in the text (as for example Carl Jorgensen, Canadian amateur astronomer † , I was wondering if there is a specific reason to do so. Would you mind if I add them to the references section? Thank you for your time. Lotje ( talk) 05:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
†
are older, legacy references from before we introduced the "Ref · Catalog"
-column using either {{
MPC}}
or {{
JPL}}
templates. In the case of Carl Jorgensen,
(13057), the
†-reference is (almost) identical to what is cited at
MPC/
JPL, and therefore not needed. So I would just remove this legacy link rather than creating a proper citation that will need maintenance as URLs tend to change.*
). Some of them might not be correct or incomplete and need to be updated according to the MPC/JPL sources before the asterisk can be removed.
Rfassbind
– talk 08:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of minor planets: 500001–501000 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/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 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. – dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
placing article [8] per MEDMOS Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news –
subscribe to The Signpost.
Go
here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I've listed Meanings of minor planet names: 100001–101000 at the copyright problems noticeboard. – dlthewave ☎ 21:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I am contacting everyone who participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 to tell you the same discussion is happening again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000. Dream Focus 12:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The Reviewer Barnstar | ||
This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing new articles in Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC) |
Hello, can you please provide an external source to justify the removal of "Suzanne" from the name of the astronomer you did on it.wiki for the article about astronomer Ellen Howell? Please note that italian articles links an external source (see note #2) supporting the presence of "Suzanne"; hence it is not enough to say that en.wiki does not show "Suzanne" in a generic list of discoverers. Best Regards. -- Ysogo ( talk) 22:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
12[3029] Schelte John Bus IIb: December 18, 1956 .... ... .....+[3030] Ellen Suzanne Howellb: May 03, 1961m: March 20, 1982
.Hi. Can you please take a look at Draft:Zava? It is a properly stated conflict of interest contribution. I see from your profile that you are from Switzerland, so I decided to ask for your advice. There was a controversy around launching DrEd in Switzerland that is exempt from the article because I couldn’t quite grasp the nature of this controversy (I am not a German speaker and Google translate is unreliable). These two articles cover it ( Blick, Ktipp). Maybe you can suggest the right wording to describe the controversy? My original wording was On June 20, 2012, DrEd was launched in Switzerland, where it faced opposition from local cantonal pharmacy supervisors, but I am not sure that this is the right description. Thank you in advance. -- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 18:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)-- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 18:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Meanings of minor planet names: 190001–191000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naka River ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Rfassbind,
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Rfassbind,
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Rfassbind,
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
There are now 811 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the
NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some
really cool awards.
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! Thanks for your extensive work over the years. Could you please review my small copy edit here as I am unsure it makes proper sense? Thanks. -- LilHelpa ( talk) 16:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Rfassbind: Thanks for reacting to the move request. I have no objection against doing this earlier than the suggested 7 days. Would you mind to also close the Talk:(486958)_2014_MU69#Requested_move_12_November_2019 discussion? Renerpho ( talk) 00:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello! You wrote the 13241 Biyo article, but it seems that from the start this included the following inscrutable claim: "The asteroid has not been surveyed by none of the space-based telescopes,..." Logically this might be "...has been surveyed by...", but I'm hoping you can immediately see how the odd version got in and correct it. Thanks! Imaginatorium ( talk) 12:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me out with the disambiguation pages. GovernorLegislator ™
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Rosguill ( talk) | 47,395 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 41,883 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 11,493 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Arthistorian1977 ( talk) | 5,562 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | DannyS712 ( talk) | 4,866 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | CAPTAIN MEDUSA ( talk) | 3,995 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 3,812 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Boleyn ( talk) | 3,655 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Ymblanter ( talk) | 3,553 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Cwmhiraeth ( talk) | 3,522 | Patrol Page Curation |
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Dear Дрейгорич, Tomruen, Kheider, Nixinova, Drbogdan, Nrco0e this is just a reminder to always add Category:Minor planet object articles (unnumbered) to any unnumbered minor planet article you might create in the future. Thanks for noticing, Rfassbind – talk 05:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that you categorized some of my redirects. In general, should I do that myself? Is there a guide or something for doing that that I'm not aware of? Clovermoss (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you switched it back to the less-common spelling.
Even Britannica uses Kura and Aras. — kentronhayastan 03:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. At Meanings of minor planet names: 8001–9000, Special:Diff/942661074, you reverted some changes that I made, for which I'd like to understand the reason:
rmv unhelpful, verbose html-comments, inconsistent with the overall series of partial lists;regarding the HTML comments I added to the transclusion of the {{ MinorPlanetNameMeaningsTableHeader}} header and closing '|}'. I did this because source "linters", like that in AWB get tripped up over this, seeing a table closing without an opening. After spending a few minutes tracking one down, I thought I'd save the next guy the trouble. I'm not clear on why these should be removed, and disagree that they're "verbose", being 34 and 101 characters respectively.
–
) into nbsp-leading spaced endashes ({{Snd}}
) (per
MOS:DASH), which were reverted. Why?—[ AlanM1( talk)]— 04:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
{{bots|deny=AWB}}
. Known issues include list size (number of characters) and template errors (too many templates on page), and erroneous AWB fixes (e.g. 2020 KG
→2020 kg
).
{{
MinorPlanetNameMeaningsTableHeader}}
, analogous to Refbegin/Refend or DivCol?.{{
Snd}}
: partial list can contain 2,000 templates in their "Provisional" and "Ref-Catalog" columns alone. The principal column also contains templates such as {{mpl}}, {{Obscode}} or even {{cite}}. These lists must not crash due template parse errors. Otherwise, a new can of worms will be opened. Of course, if the template in question becomes mandatory to use (I don't see it often), we need to adjust. –
, instead, the point being to force line breaks (if necessary) after the dash? BTW, I only hit this article because it was in my current AWB worklist by accident (I thought I removed all the planet lists). I've now removed them for sure, so it shouldn't come up again. —[
AlanM1(
talk)]— 00:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
{|
can be excluded from the template, as it is both, preceded and followed by other code. Maybe Tom has an idea. I hope, one day, you will return to edit planet lists.
Rfassbind
– talk 01:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 873 Mechthild, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mechthild ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Placing obsolete provisional names as the very first info in the lead violates the very purpose of the lead, which is to orientate the reader with the most important information: name, subject, etc. If a designation hasn't been used in a few decades, it could be included in a name section, or maybe at the end of the lead -- and it certainly belongs in the info box for cross-referencing -- but otherwise it's just clutter.
BTW, thanks for adding all the shape models. That's really nice to have. — kwami ( talk) 13:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
You added a reference to McCullough 1988 in that article without giving the full ref. Would you mind adding it?
Also note you can instal Svick's script (see instructions) to get notified of these errors in the future. It's very useful! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
Since you're one of the expert editors of minor planet redirects and articles, I thought you might want to know that the 2020-02-05 (Feb 5) Minor Planet Circular fixed an error from one of the previous editions. Apparently, the minor planet erroneously called " 249061 Anthonyberger" is actually named " 249061 Antonyberger", without the H. How do we go about updating this on Wikipedia (which currently has the erroneous version with the H) – what needs to be done on the LOMP & MOMP, alphabetical & numerical names page, and redirects? Thanks. Paintspot Infez ( talk) 18:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
{{
NASTRO comment}}
. Thx for your cooperation, your
contribution has been noted.
Rfassbind
– talk 21:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Hello Rfassbind,
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
IS the redirect needed? I want to use the name to describe German surname, now included in Volk. Xx236 ( talk) 11:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Satellite of Earth. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 3#Satellite of Earth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent contributions to List of trans-Neptunian objects. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Solar System? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III ( talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill ( talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 ( talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany ( talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra ( talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren ( talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes ( talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at the top of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 24. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vitol'd Karlovic Tseraskiy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Vitol'd Karlovic Tseraskiy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vaporwaveboyfriend ( talk) 21:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind, I deleted in wikidata the link to 33441 Catherineprato because it was added in 31441. I tried adding to to correct asteroid but I keep getting a conflict because it is a redirect. Can you have a look? Bye. -- Ysogo ( talk) 06:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your regular contributions to maintaining minor planet list articles! Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 22:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC) |
Hi, are you planning to update the lists and articles with the 179 new minor planet names announced by the WGSBN? They were published in the WGSBN's new bulletin website not too long ago. The Minor Planet Center won't be publishing new names in their circulars now, so you'll have to turn this website from now on. Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 01:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-540-34361-5_9, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🇨🇦 ( talk) 10:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Will do! Red Director ( talk) 01:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. For lists like List of named minor planets: 1–999, it says "This is a partial list", but it also says "It contains a total of 999 entries", which would make it a complete list. So I wonder if the word "partial" isn't unnecessarily confusing, and where under List of named minor planets: A it says "This is a partial list containing all named minor planets starting with the letter A", I assume that means it is also a complete list. I'd remove the word "partial" from the leads, but it may be that some of these lists actually are partial. Are all them complete, at least as of their last update?
Thanks — kwami ( talk) 15:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
Incomplete list}}
, a partial list refers to a list of a larger series (of which it is part of). Best to ask
Tom.Reding who
used the term early on. Yes, the partial lists contain all 22,727 names and are up to date (the term "complete" is ambiguous).
Rfassbind
– talk 23:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC){{{totalitmes}}}
or similarly named parameter. Thinking ahead, as a single letter might be split into two pages one day when the total number becomes too large, a template should already anticipate that, I think.
Rfassbind
– talk 00:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
|totalitems=
: I was thinking that the template could read the last letter (or hypothetically "S-1" & "S-2" whenever there is an inevitable split) and use a #switch statement to find the correct value. This would simplify updating as well, only needing to update 1 template instead of 26 pages (though you're already editing the page to update it...so...|totalitems=
is better?). ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 02:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Yes, that was exactly my concern: It is not a partial {list of MPs beginning with 'A'}. In addition, 'partial' is also ambiguous, as it can mean 'incomplete'. That distinction may be made on these lists, but I doubt it is by many of our readers, and I couldn't count on it being made consistently on WP. So, if I wanted to propose a name for a SSSB, and tried looking it up here rather than the MPC to see if the name had already been taken, I'd be left confused as to whether I could rely on WP to give me that information. (Not that should use WP rather than the MPC.) — kwami ( talk) 01:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
As of}}
might also be helpful. I will focus on the revision of my own update procedure once the new template is finalized. Best,
Rfassbind
– talk 13:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
|total=
for the total #, and optionally support {{
as of}} in the body. I'll populate all list pages with these templates tomorrow if no issues. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 01:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The alphabetical but not numerical header is accurate when taken literally, but even then, because the title of the article will already tell the reader that it's a partial list, I wonder if it wouldn't be more straightforward (and more immediately comprehensible) to drop the word 'partial' and word it something like:
"Partial" is redundant, and makes me wonder why the word is used. I expect that when a word is used, it's intended to convey information, and thus to me it sounds like the article is page 1 of asteroids starting with X. Yes, the wording makes sense when I parse it carefully, but I have to read it twice, and then I wonder if maybe it's badly worded and isn't intended mean what it literally says, and IMO we don't want to ask our readers to do that.
Similarly, maybe,
If we say this is a partial list of named minor planets in numerical order, there is no sense as to how it's partial. My first impression would be that this is probably a list of those minor planets that we've taken the time to add to the list, in numerical order. (Maybe we've only had time to add small fraction to the list.) Nowhere does it say that the list is complete.
— kwami ( talk) 02:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
Your work on updating the list of minor planets and related articles is simply incredible! Double sharp ( talk) 15:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
Hi,
Do you have any suggestion for which colors should be used for minor planet satellites like Dimorphos and 2020 BX12? There doesn't seem to be any convention for this—the inconsistent color-coding between green and default purple for some of these articles has been bugging me for quite a while now. Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 03:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
|background=#E0CCFF
along |minorplanet=yes
explicitly (to avoid troubles with future template changes).{{
NASTRO comment}}
|minorplanet=yes
in article
Xiangliu (moon) has changed the naming/linkage of listed parameters?
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Category:Unnumbered minor planets. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 3#Category:Unnumbered minor planets until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 17:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Solar System 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. Cinadon 36 15:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello
I have created (614688) 2011 KN36 as a redirection, but I don't understand why it doesn't work properly. Regards.
-- Io Herodotus ( talk) 07:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
{{User:PhiH/W|111551872}}
(and save the page) so you can create an "intentional site link to redirect" by clicking on "Add this page" and then click on button "Save site link" on the "Set Item sitelink" page. I will amend above redirect to show you what I mean. OK? Also note the additional information (categories, WD properties) I am adding as well.
Rfassbind
– talk 08:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 811 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 861 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself
here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 [a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size. [b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
There is a new template available, {{
NPP backlog}}
, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 14940 articles, as of 08:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
{{subst:NPR invite}}on their talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
( t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rfassbind,
Hope you're feeling well. I really miss your regular updates to the minor planet lists here! As much as I appreciate you for your tireless effort into maintaining minor planet-related articles, I do think that you truly deserve a long, refreshing break. Anyways, I'll be looking forward to seeing you again here sometime! Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 19:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
{{subst:NPR invite}}on their talk page.
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rfassbind,
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
( t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
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.
Suggestions:
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!
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
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.
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.
New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
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
Hello Rfassbind,
The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.
Reminders:
Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
I hope you are fine, and I am wishing you all the best. I wanted to let you know that I am missing you and your contributions. Renerpho ( talk) 00:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Category:Cometary object articles has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. C messier ( talk) 17:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of photovoltaic growth, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of photovoltaic growth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I saw on WP:RECORDS that the List of minor planets (numerical) was the longest article at creation date -- with a whopping 2,024,726 bytes! Wow. If I may ask, what was the process of creating the article? Were all the planets already on a list that was elsewhere? I am only asking this because I am curious. Sometimes, it's rather hard to determine the story of articles came to be just from their edit histories. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia! Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk) 01:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
This user may have left Wikipedia. Rfassbind has not edited Wikipedia since October 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Nice work on Photovoltaic systems. All that info in the Overview section needs sources. If we can't come up with them, we should that content until we have it. Cheers. Joja lozzo 16:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I just wanted to say your edits over these last months have turned ' Growth of photovoltaics' into a really good article; I remember when it was much less extensive or referenced and I think named something else. Now it's all cohesively organized and very informative. Great work! TimeClock871 ( talk) 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I have brought up the following dispute that you are in, with the resolution board. /info/en/?search=Talk:Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#Wikitable_EROEI_-_energy_sources_in_2013 178.167.254.22 ( talk) 00:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
As stated on the dispute resolution board, seen as this part of my reply to you was getting a bit long. I've taken to instead replying to it here.
As for your, so called - "...comprehensive [but not peer-reviewed] criticism of Weissbach's study I found here". I don't really need to say anything on this non-peer reviewed, German state funded, author's attempt to critique the Weissbach ET AL. study. As thankfully someone already has taken that piece to task! Read Cyril R's reply found in that link, they expose each and every one of the the authors "criticisms" as fraudulent bias. As this section was getting a little too long, I cut my retort to the above link, and instead posted it on User:Rfassbind's talk page, which you can read there.
For an example of the bias in the arguments from that state funded website: They try and counter Weissbach et. al's assumed 60 year lifespan for nuclear plants by arguing - hey the oldest continuously operating commercial reactor is only 45 this year? With guess this, "Solar PV panels are [now being sold by manufacturers with a lifespan tag of] 35 years..." - Did you catch that? They give readers a demonstrated ongoing lifespan value(45+) and then throw in a paper calculated value, by the solar PV industry, of just out of the lab solar panels! Tell me, are the solar PV panels installed 1-10 years ago in Germany, even half way to the D. Weißbach et al. papers generously assumed 25 year lifespan for solar PV? Nope! Rfassbind, maybe you can help here, What is the oldest, continuously operating, and commercial Solar PV panel? The German state funded piece naturally(because of bias) shies away from being fair and doing an equivalence by giving readers the answer to that important question, obviously! These are the kind of basic arithmetic failures and displays of bias that Cyril R takes them to task on. While I don't doubt improvements are being made to Solar PV, and that's great, and hey sure maybe cutting edge panels are being sold with a manufacturers lifespan tag of "35 years", but don't forget, so are Generation III reactors being sold with "80 years" tags. So Weissbach et. al are hardly biased to have chosen an assumed 60 years for the majority of presently operating nuclear plants, and a very generous 25 years for the majority of presently operating Solar PV panels - even though the vast majority of installed solar PV panels are not even half way there.
Anyways as both Cyril R(and everyone else knows) the assumed 60 year lifespan for nuclear and ~25 year lifespan for solar PV are design lifespan assumptions based upon assessments done by, and stated by their manufacturers. Unfortunately Cryril R didn't link them to the oldest reactor still operating, which is the F-1 (nuclear reactor), an infrequently operated research reactor turned on in 1946. I'll let you figure out how old that makes it. P.S it's older than Weissbach et al's conservative 60 year lifespan for nuclear power reactors, with 1940s reactor technology. To be fair, how many of the solar panels from the 1980s are still in commercial operation Rfassbind? Are there any?
If you can show us just 1 example of a solar panel with german levels of insolation from the 1980s that has been continuously operating for even 25+ years(bonus points if they're still commercial) and still pumping out ~70% of its initial nameplate/day one, rated energy supply, then I'll concede that Weissbach et al. are biased against Solar PV. Until then, good luck. 178.167.254.22 ( talk) 06:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Above, an anon user disagrees with the 60-year figure for the life expectancy of nuclear reactors. The rant claims that solar PV power systems haven't yet proven their projected life expectancy of 30 years either. This comparison is inane. The operational lifetime for these two technologies depend on different things: while PV systems can run until they break down, nuclear power stations can't do that for well-known reasons. They are even being turned off way before they reach 60 years. In addition, here's a link to a PV-system from 1982. It's grid-connected, continuously-running for more than 30 years with an annual degradation of 0.5%. -- Rfassbind -talk 13:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorting by date doesn't work for month+year, only just for year. If you try to make descending sort of that column, it will sort the rows that have a year in a normal fashion, but will not sort the rows with month in it, so it becomes just useless. –– Georgij Michaliutin ( talk) 13:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I really liked your work on Comet. The image looks awesome now. Can you do that magic again on Dwarf Planet? Tetra quark ( don't be shy) 16:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I just added a 5-image-compilation on Dwarf Planet.
You recently added BrownDwarfComparison-pia12462 to the Brown Dwarf page. I think the image is incorrect (even though it's from NASA). The Sun should be about 10 times the diameter of Jupiter, but the image shows it only as about 5 times bigger. See Sol_Cha-110913-773444_Jupiter, further down on the page, for a better comparison. Tbayboy ( talk) 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thx, let me know if there's something I can do -- Rfassbind -talk 17:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You have been making global edits to the main table on List of possible dwarf planets. I agree with the substance of the edits, but there is an issue: that table is automatically generated from a program. This allows me to do easy updates from the sources (the Minor Planet Center TNO lists and Brown's Dwarf Planets list) without having to carefully look through the sources searching for changes. When you make a change to the table, I have to update the program generate matching text so that the next update doesn't clobber your changes. (I do an update about every month, so that the numbers in the table that come from those source, and the order of the entries, don't have to be managed by hand, and so stay true to the sources.)
See the discussion about it on the talk page.
The reason for telling you this is so that you don't waste too much time editing the table when a change to the program (followed by an update from the program) only takes me a few minutes. If you're just doing a global search+replace editor function then it's okay (doesn't take you any longer to do that than it does to explain the change it to me), but if you have to individually edit a lot of lines then it's better to do it through with the program. The following columns are NOT generated automatically from the sources, so you can changes the numbers/texts there with no issue: Measured Mass, Measured Diameter, Tancredi, and Category.
The program I'm using is a Microsoft SQL Server Express script (SQL source code). I can give you the source code if you like, but you need to have and know (a little) MS SQL Server Express (freely downloadable) to do anything with it. If you have a good working knowledge of any other SQL system, you can probably port it there, too, since it's a simple program (it doesn't do anything tricky).
Furthermore, please tell me if you know a place to keep this code on Wikipedia. I tried putting it on the talk page, but the code contains wiki-markup, so it blows up the page. I just did a quick, simple test. There must be a way to do it, but I'm not that fluent in wiki-editing.
Thanks, Tbayboy ( talk) 17:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
<pre>
tag helps to display the code line by line (without any wrapping of new-line characters){{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}}
allow you to collapse text-content (hide/show) in a "spoiler-box"→see
Template:Hidden begin<nowiki>
tag prevents wikipedia to parse the wikicode and displays the way it is on the website.Hi,
Thanks for your outside help mediating at dark matter. Wording disagreements are tough, since sources don't really have anything to contribute one way or the other, and it's certainly much ado about one word. —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you have a "million" missing in your edit:
As per the World Coal Association: 1 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) corresponds to 0.697 tonne of oil equivalent (Mtoe)[24] As per the International Energy Agency 1 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) corresponds to 0.700 tonne of oil equivalent (Mtoe)[25]
? should be
As per the World Coal Association: 1 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) corresponds to 0.697 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe)[24] As per the International Energy Agency 1 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) corresponds to 0.700 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe)[25]
Or have I got this all wrong? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 11:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
This figure is inspired by a given source. The source indicates that the "Worlds power consumption is 16 TWy/y". This is equivelant to me stating that for my house the energy consuption is 20000 kWh/y. On your figure this has changed to "Worlds power consuption is 16 TW". Now, kW, TW etc is normally used to express power/leistung. To me it would be very unfamiliar to say that the power consumption of my house is 1950 W.
Can you explain to me why the unit is changed from TWy/y (energy per year) to TW (power/leistung)?
(Please answer on this page) Regards KjellG ( talk) 12:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
As of December 2015, unfortunately, I haven't received a feed-back from you, KjellG. But I noticed, that you instead removed the diagram we discussed above from the articles Solar energy and Renewable energy about two weeks ago. I have now reverted your removal and posted a comment on the talk page of the latter article. Please feel free to post your reply there, OK? This thread is now closed for consistency reasons, as it would be otherwise difficult for other editors to follow our conversation chronologically. Thx -- Rfassbind – talk 16:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Nrwairport (
talk) 06:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rfassbind, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sadads ( talk) 17:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rfassbind. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Sadads ( talk) 17:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. If you look at WP:Overlink it also says that we "do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on." That's a huge error on these articles. If it was one or two I would simply correct it, but I started to do that and realized there are hundreds and hundreds of links that simply go back to the same page. That can't happen and it needs to be fixed. If they don't have an article those minor planets need to be de-linked... all of them. That's why the tag is there. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.
Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!
https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H
Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship
Wuqi333444 ( talk) 05:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Something went wrong when you moved these old, improperly named minor planets:
to their correct, new destination, which excludes the "()". The history of the old pages did not get transferred to the new, so it will be harder for someone attempting to revert the new destination to make a proper article. I've put a note in my latest edit summaries to the new pages to identify this, but that's definitely not something we want to do on a large scale. And I put a comment inside the old to not categorize them, since they would then be duplicated in each of their categories. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 03:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
(num) name
articles. I always moved the redirected articles from their provisional to their formal designation. For the minor planet 5680 Nasmyth (1989 YZ1)
, which you listed above, I took a closer look:(num) name
to num name
versions, which, for the example above,
you already did.(num) name
designation, which, for the example above,
you already did, as well as adding a do-not-categorize-this-page comment on the bottom. However, I would rather prefer to entirely delete such pages. For several reasons I'll explain in detail if you disagree, deleting seems a better and much simpler solution to me. What you think?"(number) name"
nomenclature, with no one fixing it, while others continue to work on such wrong versions, these problems are prone to appear from time to time. After all I created (moved from provisional designation) the article 5680 Nasmyth
because it simply did not exist. I noticed this when I revised the "List of minor planets" (removing self-redirects). On that list, the article with the provisional was linked, so I updated the list adding the name and moved the redirecting page from provisional to final designation. Please let me know if you have any suggestions, because, on the circumstances described above, I will do exactly the same actions in my future revision over and over again. Thx --
Rfassbind
– talk 09:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)<!-- To avoid duplication, do not categorize this page. -->
note and remove all cats, unfortunately :/ ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 14:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Hi Rfassbind,
could you check something for me? I just wanted to create an article Walddrehna Solar Park for the German wikipedia, when I noticed a problem. After having done some research, I think that this solar farm and the Solarpark Heideblick are in fact the same solar farm. It seems to me that the latter has been created when there was only one part of the farm connected to the grid and then there has been created another article about the complet farm some month later. I'm not absolutely sure, so I would like you to confirm that. Maybe helpful: [1]. There's also another link, however the spam filter got active and prevented it. Also Google Earth does only show one solar farm in Heideblick. Greetings, Andol ( talk) 00:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rfass. I didn't know about this #R template until an administrator
closed the RfD on
12817Federica 3 weeks ago. I didn't see until 2 weeks later that it's actually used on over 1.2 M redirects... So it's kind of a big deal and is being used by the community (unlike
Category:Minor planet redirects, unfortunately). Now I include {{
R unprintworthy}}
when I make and/or fix existing #Rs. I see you've removed it on
20624 Dariozanetti and possibly others, though. I just want to let you know so we're not working against each other. Thanks. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 14:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm almost done moving pages out of Category:Palomar–Leiden survey into the discoveries categories above. Of the 73 that remain, 19 get flagged by my code as having a WP name != JPL name. In this case, the WP name has diacritics while the JPL name does not. I've seen you moving pages around to and/or from diacritics, so could you move these pages to ones without diacritics too?
After that's resolved, my code will distinguish between, and move PLS discoveries (asteroids with "P-L" on JPL) to Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden survey, and PLS known-objects (the 54 asteroids without "P-L" on JPL, like 6671 Concari) into Category:Palomar–Leiden survey catalog (tentatively named, and only after double checking that 6671, and others, are indeed part of the catalog). Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden survey will of course be a child of both Category:Palomar–Leiden survey catalog and Category:Discoveries by institution, and I'll put wording in there not to duplicate.
Here's the list of WP diacritics in PLS cats that need to be moved to non-diacritical names, per JPL:
Let me know if you don't have the time to move these, and I'll take care of them instead. Thanks! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Tom, most of these names with diacritics are correct. I will respond on the WTAstro thread you linked above. As for the discoveries by PLS, I've decided to withdraw and leave the field to you so we don't clash with different approaches. BR, Rfassbind – talk 00:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You should be able to recognizing discoveries by PLS as long as you check the provisional designation displayed in the parenthesis of the title of JPL's website. I came across this legacy-problem. (As multiple "institutional" discoverers do not exists). Also, for the PLS category, the Category:Discoveries by Tom Gehrels should always be added (there are, however, 2 discoveries credited to the van Houten's without Tom Gehrels – if you know/find out their designation, pls let me know). Note, that I created the categories Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden Trojan-1 survey, Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden Trojan-2 survey and Category:Discoveries by the Palomar–Leiden Trojan-3 survey, since, on second thought, I otherwise would have to re-visit newly created redirects, as I've already done extensively due to the "R unprintworthy" template and the "Minor planet redirects"-category. Rfassbind – talk 13:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
string externalText = Tools.GetHTML(JPL_URL);
in C# does the trick). I make the module skip pages with any unmatched authors, showing me what the unknown JPL discoverer string is. I take that string and update a spreadsheet which writes additional lines of a very long C# case-statement mapping JPL to WP, then iteratively run all the pages I skipped back through the module, gradually lowering the number of skipped pages until I'm left with a shortlist of people who've only discovered 1-2 asteroids, which I ignore.All objects currently associated with the Palomar–Leiden survey cats and the Trojan surveys cats are now sorted into their discovery and/or survey catalog cats. I made Category:Palomar–Leiden Trojan-1 survey catalog, Category:Palomar–Leiden Trojan-2 survey catalog, and Category:Palomar–Leiden Trojan-3 survey catalog to hold non-discoveries, which are parents to their respective discovery cats. I'll continue to search for PL objects as I progress through the MPs, and on pages I've already gone though. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm probably going to make this category to keep track of these annoying buggers, and more:
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I think I just bumped into such discrepancy at 23109 Yanagisawa ( JPL) vs 23109 Masayanagisawa ( MPC). I used the Template:R from incorrect name instead of one of the 3 mentioned above.
Thx Tom, for the JPL/MPC comparison. As you know probably know, I did a check on Wikipedias Minor planet list versus their corresponding MPC's lists (i.e. Discovery Circumstances: Numbered Minor Planets, such as (1)-(5000) and (5001)-(10000)).
Thx, Tom. About JPL vs MPC sources for names: Here are two explicit examples:
It seems that the MPC is too much of a chicken to really address the issue. Instead, they offer different versions, without being explicit. Well I won't go too much into detail, so:
On wikipedia, for non-diacritical-aliases, e.g. 12638 Fransbruggen, it seems helpful to reference their correct diacritical version 12638 Fransbrüggen, as they both are redirected to the list of minor planets. That's why I add the "{{R avoided double redirect|12638 Fransbrüggen}}" to keep the connection. The issue for the three different types of apostrophes and hypen/enDash versions are only partially handeled.
Note: I will use Template:R from incorrect name for wrong names on JPL (uncorrected erratas of first MPC circular publication) until you tell me a different tpl.
Question: Is it correct to remove the cat "Main-belt asteroids" when there is a category such as "Flora asteroids"? (I saw a few changes). Please tell me / give me a link, so I don't need to do corrections. Also, the sort key for the Category:Minor planet redirects is probably the ASCII version of the article's name, not the article's name itself (as it say in your description), correct? Pls let me know, and if you have made up your mind, you could tell me whether you prefer uppper-case on the sort-key's first letter only or not. Thx Rfassbind – talk 09:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
'
) as long as they're not the 2nd character in the key (all of the details are listed in
WP:SORTKEY). I updated
Category:Minor planet redirects text with this.I have to side with the MPC db on this, the Julian day#Variants section, and Epoch (astronomy), which all use DMY/YMD/variants to refer to epoch, and the large number as the JD. I'm making a program to update {{ Infobox planet}} orbital parameters from JPL (since I've lost access to the MPC) and will likely adopt MPC (and our) notation (JPL is often not as careful as the MPC, as we all know!). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 22:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Epoch 13 January 2016 (JD 2457400.5)
Epoch 2457400.5 · JD 13 January 2016
Epoch JD 2457400.5 (13 January 2016)"
?|epoch=13 January 2016 ([[Julian day|JD]] 2457400.5)
is how the first 15 MPs do it (with the exception of
3 Juno), so I will most likely base my code off of that. I'm still going to look through a larger sample of low-numbered MPs (maybe 30-50 total) before deciding, but this is definitely the standard so far.I posted it here: User:Tom.Reding/List of JPL & MPC discoverer aliases, in case it's of any use. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
While going through and updating MPs' infobox data from JPL, I'm finding some inconsistencies in color (I thought all MPs were |background=#FFFFC0
). For the inconsistent ones, I looked back to see how long they had been a different color and saw you were involved with most of the ones I've come across (only a narrow sample at the moment). I also vaguely recall someone talking about developing a color scheme for MPs (was it you?). Do you know the result of that discussion, and should I or shouldn't I be using |background=#FFFFC0
for all infoboxes? Thanks. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 14:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
|bgcolour=
(deprecated) to |background=
, and I've only added the default color to uncolored infoboxes (checking & coding for the color scheme, however, doesn't sound enjoyable to me so I'll leave that to you). ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 13:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been copied directly from http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-540-29925-7_6276, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. — Diannaa ( talk) 14:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Part of your addition to 5028 Halaesus has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material from here to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you've got some evidence that these descriptions are in the public domain, please present it. The Springer page is clearly marked as being copyright. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa ( talk) 13:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm finally getting down to the finer details of MPs' infobox standardization:
 
to its unicode character, but the unicode char is harder to see and/or confirm that it's there, so I'm going to go back and un-unicodify back to  
.
 
between all numbers/values and their <ref>
/{{
efn}}
s, as long as  
or
<ref>
/{{
efn}}
s at least 40% of the time in the infobox. This is all written down on the
code page, points 2.4 and 2.5.| observation_arc = {{nowrap|### yr (#### days)}}
has no effect on the rendered infobox, so I'm not using {{
nowrap}}
. I think it was used as a legacy work-around, back when/before |width=
was deprecated. The infobox now does a good job of managing its width.
s. Testing this on a few MP infoboxes with many, many parameters, I actually do like the trailing-
option, since it effectively removes whitespace between the name of the parameters on the left and the parameter values on the right, without changing the width of the infobox (until a certain threshold is crossed). I have seen that being done. Were you involved with that? If so, what did you use as your desired infobox width and what method(s) did you use to calculate the width of the existing text? I'll probably be able to replicate that in C#, since there are functions to calculate the width of rendered text; I just don't know if they'll work in AWB yet (dependencies, etc.).|discovered=
since it will never need to be updated. I'll put a comparison together in my userspace and see if there's any support for it. (Discussion
here)|label_width=
. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 16:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)|observation_arc=
& |period=
).|period=
, I've been wikilinking
d to
Julian year (astronomy), since the best description of a Julian day as used here, that I could find, is in the lead of
Julian year (astronomy).What do you think about these? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 13:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I am nominating
template:source for discussion. Apparently you used the template meant for
template:code. Can you change from {{source}}
to {{code}}
? I appreciate that. By the way, I invite you to the discussion at TfD.
George Ho (
talk) 04:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 5254 Ulysses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ulysses. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This MP desperately needs your help! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help with that page. I am a real novice to Wikipedia so I really appreciated your input. Jamaica solar ( talk) 14:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Some recent edits have been done to this page that, seem to me to introduce inconsistencies in the layout. In particular, the table of "Top countries for 2015" would be better placed under the sub heading "Deployment by Country" and follow the pattern of subsequent years. I would attempt it but, being a novice and seeing where many of the edits in 2015 were done by you, I would prefer to defer to your expertise. I notice also that most, if not all the forecasts for 2016 are now out so, the forecast section appears a little outdated. Again I would do some updates but, do not have the confidence that I would do as good a job as you have done. Jamaica solar ( talk) 16:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Something is weird and possibly broken in your post on my talkpage. If I try to respond as I normally would I seem to break it and my text gets put in the middle. What sorcery is this? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 04:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
FYI I'm thinking about moving the newest table header
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="min-width: 80%;" ! colspan=2 | Designation ! colspan=2 | Discovery ! rowspan=2 | [[:Category:Discoverers of minor planets|Discoverer(s)]] ! rowspan=2 class="unsortable" | Ref |- ! style="min-width: 100px;" | [[Minor planet designation|Permanent]] ! style="min-width: 60px;" | [[Provisional designation in astronomy|Provisional]] ! [[:Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery|Date]] ! [[:Category:Minor-planet discovering observatories|Site]]
into {{ List of minor planets/header2}} so it's easier to mass-update and should save ~4.5 kB from the edit window. This'll probably impact your discoverers update, so let me know if you want me to hold off. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 12:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's still useful to have some basic bottom-navigation on the LOMP & MOMPN pages (especially since you're filling out each LOMP to its intended size (1000)). I've seen editors add meanings-info to the numbered list instead of the meanings-list, so having a meanings-link in the ==See also== & {{ MinorPlanetListFooter}} is ok by me. The footer also provides a link back to the master index. For ultimate redundancy, maybe we can add your "Back to top" button to the footer template? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
(merging
10 subpages into main list (10×100→1000)
"do-not-show-back-to-top-link=yes"
- parameter type of option the first table header of the page could be prevented to display a back-to-top-link.''example of a back-to-top link, placed in the header of each section (equivalent to a version where the link is actually part of the "header2" template) == 420901–421000 == {{Anchor|901}} {{float|[[#top|back to top]] [[File:WWC arrow up.png|link=#top]]}} {{clear|right}} {{List of minor planets/header2}} |-
What's your take on this, Tom? Rfassbind – talk 19:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
|top-link=no
.I agree. Since you introduced templates, changes only need to be done once; and we always can modify it as we go along.
I'm a fan of large and complete rather than fragmented but incomplete categories, so a single "Category:Named minor planets" would be fine by me. Also, I created MP#R for all named bodies, this category would be complete (and in fact would help to spot any missing items). What is your thought on this. Rfassbind – talk 10:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for bad English. One of the two transwiki go in German wiki at the voice " https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsuneo_Niijima": this it's right or not? 84.253.136.14 ( talk) 08:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Since it was said several times in the first CfD that "it will be populated in the near future", and that the CfD was recently relisted, I'm willing to populate it as a means of potentially swaying votes to the keep side. Do you have, or can you make, a list of asteroids named as an award and I (or you, or we) can populate it? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 19:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Tom.Reding:: Done the "mentors" are now separated from the finalist/awardees. See Batch A and B. They contain close to 400 items in total. As far as I'm concerned, the mentors could be placed into a subcategory of the awardees (and they themselves into a ISEF / Broadcom MASTERS subcategory later). Rfassbind – talk 00:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Added new items to list Batch E and F (+26 finalists; +1 mentor). Rfassbind – talk 14:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I just voted below you in a CFD. I use this syntax highlighter, and your signature caused it to highlight everything below your signature, making the highlighting useless. Could you please move the opening <em> to the beginning of your signature? The highlighter expects html tags and link markup to be closed in the reverse order they are opened. Thanks. kennethaw88 • talk 07:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Someone's created a new page at Asteroid 17473 Freddiemercury. Isn't that against Wikipedia naming policy for minor planets? 2.99.207.130 ( talk) 20:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Template:Astro list redirect comment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ppp ery 02:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
→ See result of the discussion here. Rfassbind – talk 00:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed this subsection—I think I helped contribute to it since I only added {{
Redirect category shell}}
where there were 2 or more {{R}}s, and not when there was a solitary {{R}}. Want help fixing them? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 11:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
{{NASTRO comment|do-not-cat=yes|r-templates=off}}
, which have turned off the standard templates. So instead of removing the shell, I added {{
R unprintworthy}} to it. Besides those, I didn't find any shells with a single-{{R}}. Hope that makes sense to you,
Rfassbind
– talk 13:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
R to diacritics}}
doesn't apply when there is a {{R avoided double redirect}}, I understand that this technically correct, and that you have done a revision on October 4, removing said rcat such as in
here (btw: is there a bug in your anchor generation? it has four digits), so sorry if I have coincidentally interfered with a recent revision of yours I wasn't aware of. As for your offer, the answer is now obsolete and I thank you for your help.essentially the same page name with diacritical marks), it's technically incorrect to put it on an #R pointing to a List of minor planets (LoMP) though, so any r-template gnome would have no reason to hesitate taking it off, and the argument for keeping it is very specific to WP:AST. The best way to make it permanent, and self-consistent, is to find an R-template that suits our needs, or to make one:
The correct form is given by the target of the redirect), and would be used for actual MP misspellings anyway. The only MP#Rs that could legitimately contain {{ R from modification}} are secondary MP#Rs to the LoMP. Any other MP#Rs with this {{R}} that don't point to the LoMP (i.e. they point to the developed diacritized article) can be easily searched for and corrected.
to a more common variation).
to a title with differences that are non-ASCII symbols).
Good lord... ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 14:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Why remove values for |moid=
, |jupiter_moid=
, & |tisserand=
? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 12:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
|mean_motion=
parameter), some other differences I had to ignore in order to keep my frustration level low. The
minimum orbital intersection distance is such as difference:
|jupiter_moid=
, which is only used for JTs, CEN and outer main-belts (JPL definition) and has a limit at 0.95 AU|tisserand=
; but it is never displayed when the value is significantly above 3.We're gonna have to carefully reapply the <noinclude>
& <onlyinclude>
tags so that the 1000s MoMPs work with the 10,000s MoMPs (i.e.
Meanings of minor planet names: 220,001–230,000 is quite a mess atm). I can help later this week if needed. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 12:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
Meanings of minor planet names}}
amended (or dropped). The 10k pages are another complexity that is not appropriate. If you think it is better the keep them (adding a list of 10 partial MoMP lists), rather than redirecting or deleting, then I'm fine with it, but the non/onlyinclude tags really have to go. Instead the 1k-lists need fixing and updating, what I am about to to as soon as the syntax is consistent.
Rfassbind
– talk 12:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
onlyinclude
tags to display the page correctly. Your edits have placed a large number of new pages in the category
Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. I don't know what's the proper fix, whether it is to undo your changes that added section headers, or reintroduce onlyinclude tags. Let me know if you need more context into the issue... I personally don't know what the correct fix is. —
Andy W. (
talk) 15:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
Meanings of minor planet names}}
) will be taken care of. As for the category "DEFAULTSORT conflicts", I didn't change anything, but it seems obvious to me that this "confilct" is due to fact that the one and only existing category has its individual sort key already defined (see below). So either this sortkey or the {{DEFAULTSORT}} line has to be removed in order to fix it.
Rfassbind
– talk 16:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC){{DEFAULTSORT:Meanings of minor planet names 392001-393000}} [[Category:Lists of meanings of minor planet names|392001-393000]]
{{
Meanings of minor planet names}}
are removed, then the 36 pages won't be linked-to at all. I don't know what to do best with these pages: delete, redirect, or turn into a list of links, as, for example, in
List of Jupiter trojans (Trojan camp). Also each table header in pMoMP now links to
List of named minor planets (alphabetical), which, I think, gives a much better overview (not just over a number range of 10K but, "good lord", over a much larger range). Pls, let me know what you think. Converting the pages to a "link-list" may not upset the original creator of these (no obsolete) pages as much as a deletion...
Rfassbind
– talk 16:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The Banstar Barnstar | ||
A long-overdue award for multiple temporary bans from the MPC database, and probably others! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, Rfassbind. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
hi I would like to suggest that your figure "Price history of silicon PV cells since 1977" would provide more information about recent years if the vertical scale were logarithmic, like the two panels below yours in Solar cell#Declining costs and exponential growth. Of course, such a change will soon be unavoidable! Thanks! Layzeeboi ( talk) 07:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it is a main-belt asteroid so I don't understand why you moved it from the category of main-belt asteroids. You can find this classified as a main-belt asteroid on IAU Minor planets Excuse me if I'm wrong. JohnSmith678 ( talk) 15:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Please don't canvass editors to vote with you in AfDs, like you did Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#AfD Pronunciation of Trojan asteroid names. Leaving a neutral message at a relevant Wikiproject is no problem, but yu shouldn't post messages stating everything that is right with the article and wrong with the AfD, and then asking people to "take a look". Fram ( talk) 14:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
You also shouldn't create pages like User:Rfassbind/Pronunciation of Jupiter trojans, as this is a copyright violation. Copying within Wikipedia but without attribution is not allowed. Fram ( talk) 14:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rfassbind, Thanks for your edits to the Société Ramond page, very helpful. May I ask just one thing; why have you renamed the page? Most of the references I've seen to it are to the French name, and if you look at Category:Learned societies of France you'll see that most French learned societies retain their French name. Is there a WP policy about this, or is it done on a case-by-case basis? Regards, Ericoides ( talk) 05:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Rfassbind, I just found the diskussion about my updating of the Orbital parameters of the planets. Did you read this talk too? I agree when you say, that there were maybe to many diggits behind the comma, but instead of deleting the unnecessary diggits you reverted all the other aspects of my edits too, everything! like * the references are not anymore in the articel e.g. Jupiter, * the adjustment of the order of the pamater in the code and in the one in the article e.g. Saturn, * the updating of the values e.g. Uranus, * better number format e.g. Mercury) And yes, in my refs there were missing epoch, date and access-date, but is this a reason to revert all the work I did? Your reverts took 5 min, my edits 3 hours. Now it is too difficult to reactivate my edits with less diggits,.. there are to much edits since than. You wrote I'll revert and ask W like wiki – did I miss something on my talk page? This way of working makes me sad. Regards, -- W like wiki ( talk) 02:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC) (Sry for my poor English)
I know I'm probably the only one watching the Martian crater pages, since I created them, but holy crap that's a lot of notifications! Thanks for doing this, even if it blows up my inbox (at least I know they're all the same and can basically ignore them). Primefac ( talk) 11:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Each of the files I removed ( File:MinorPlanet-2007uk126-19970930.gif, File:2010EK139-OCKS-KBO3.gif, and File:2003 EL61 Haumea, with moons.jpg) from List of trans-Neptunian objects is licensed as non-free content which means that each use of the file needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. You can see this by going to each file's page and looking at the licensing being used. None of these files are licensed as Template:PD-USGov-NASA and none of them list NASA as the author. Official NASA websites (like other official government websites) do sometimes host photos created by others, and these files are not always in the public domain.
It's possible that they were uploaded under the incorrect licensing, and if you clearly believe this and are able to show this (i.e., provide a proper search showing they are public domain, and that NASA is the copyright owner, etc.), then you can change the files' copyright tags to something more appropriate. If, however, you just think they are likely public domain but aren't 100% sure, then you can (1) ask for feedback at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC, or (2) start a formal discussion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I saw you were able to delete 47171 Lempo when it was mistakenly #R'd to 47171 Lempo-Hiisi. Where were you able to request permissions to do that? Very useful! I've put in my fair share of G6s & C1s recently, so this looks quite appealing. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear Rfassbind, I just corrected an edit you had made to the article 385446 Manwë in March 2017. It seems you had changed the orbital elements to those of asteroid 12345 (1993 FT8). Since the change (which went unnoticed for 8 months) seems rather odd, I want to make sure I don't miss something (after all, it is 3 o'clock in the morning here so I may just need some sleep). Renerpho ( talk) 01:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
&query=1
to the URL forces JPL's Search Engine to display the results rather than the query form). Why is it funny that there's no article for
(12345) 1993 FT8?
Rfassbind
– talk 03:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Rfassbind. 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, Rfassbind.
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, |
Hello Rfassbind. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various
deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at
page reviewer talk.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih ( talk) 18:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rfassbind,
as someone who used to visit that page quite often, I was deeply disappointed with the result of your big edit in october, which as I understand it completely replaced the tables that are the heart of this article, omitting information I consider crucial - namely the objects' orbital elements. I always found it most helpful to sort these tables by average orbital distance (and wished I could have merged them for this purpose), and quite enlightening to compare their other orbital elements. As they are now, I find those lists very uninteresting and wish they would revert to their former contents.
I would really appreciate it if you found a way to restore those tables to their original functionality! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.179.147.92 ( talk) 04:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Outreach and Invitations:
{{subst:NPR invite}}
. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.New Year New Page Review Drive
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I think your map of PV watt per capita in Europe ( commons:File:Europe WattPerCapita animated sequence 2008-2013.gif) is very nice and useful. However, it has not been updated since 2014. Are you planning to add 2015 and 2016? I understand there has not been such a fast growth in Europe recently, but I think it's nice to have updated images anyway. Also it would be better to change the title to reflect the eventual updates in the future (that is, remove the years). Let me know how can I help in case. Thanks! -- Ita140188 ( talk) 09:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Rfassbind.
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project,
AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. |
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 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
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)
FYI someone is having a go at turning this former #R into an article. It's not on the #R shortlist nor a candidate #R, but perhaps it's on one of your todo lists :) ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 04:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Backlog update:
New Year Backlog Drive results:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
A question. In your latest edit of near-Earth object, you consistently changed "km" into "kilometers" resp. "m" into "meters". Why is that? I thought using symbols is OK in line with this passage in MOS:UNITNAMES: "symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use". Rontombontom ( talk) 10:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Looking at
Meanings of minor planet names: 374001–375000 & the top of
List of minor planets: 374001–375000 makes me want to center everything... Would that mess anything else up for you? The only place it might not look good is on
List of minor planets#Orbital groups, but parameters can be made that default to margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;
(
centered) if not specified, and % based left and right alignments otherwise. It might even look better left-justified or centered on
List of minor planets. What do you think? If done, then I would followup with centering the corresponding TOC templates of course. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 23:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
Happy template editing! Swarm ♠ 02:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
There is some confusion about asteroid discoverers named Lopez because there are 3 people bearing that name. So the table you added in Álvaro López-García article is wrong, he actually discovered 12 asteroids only (in cooperation with H. Debehogne). 2nd one is Àngel López, according to my calculation he discovered 58 asteroids, 3 by himself and 55 in cooperation with R. Pacheco ( here is his site with asteroid table). 3rd Lopez is Jean-Marie Lopez (J.M. Lopez), he discovered only 4. Even MPC calculated number of their discovereries incorrectly. Can you check it and correct these tables accordingly? I think tables in Álvaro López-García and Àngel López articles on Polish wiki where I edit are correct Pikador ( talk) 12:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The Lopez situation should be resolved now:
Plz let me know if something is still missing, Rfassbind – talk 01:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Paid editing
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
News
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged
Charles William Shoppee for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.
The page is a redirect, not an article. I'm confused as to why you are marking it as such.
As for the article, well, I'm working on that.
Pdfpdf (
talk) 03:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: /info/en/?search=Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{ infobox ship}} is parsed).
If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.
Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Template:Mpf has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Huntster ( t @ c) 00:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Deletion tags
Backlog drive:
Editathons
Paid editing - new policy
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Not English
News
Hello Rfassbind, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
No, I rather not edit already made pages. That defeats the purpose of what im doing. Im trying to eduacate people on things that has very lityle information. Not ones that need more editing . FLuca89 ( talk) 17:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind, just noticed you were editing the categories with the minor planet pages between 300 and 400. However, I noticed that a few of these pages in this range had an irregular sort as DEFAULTSORT:0003XX instead of the normal DEFAULTSORT:Name-of-the-minor-planet used by the rest of the pages. Since you're presumably pretty busy with all the other amazing edits you've been making on these pages, would you want me to make these DEFAULTSORT corrections, or were you already going to (while making the Category:Background asteroids edits, etc.)? Paintspot Infez ( talk) 02:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed the table had a problem with the leftmost column, and took a stab at fixing it per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial. Please take a look at my version and let me know what you think. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 06:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
Largest Jupiter trojans}}
: I think there is a misunderstanding. This is not a bug but a feature which allows the table to be sorted by the three different surveys (size estimates) while the
static ranking column remains unchanged.
Rfassbind
– talk 10:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Do you have any ref about the change name of the association? Because I have never seen the association called "Amateur Aastronomers" anywhere, and it's not it's name.
I think even in english texts the name is always the original one -Asociacion Argentina "Amigos de la Astronomia"-. [2]
Regards! -- JoRgE-1987 ( talk) 22:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello Rfassbind, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
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.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Your AWB access request has been completed successfully. Please be sure to review Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser carefully before using. — xaosflux Talk 16:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hyperbolic asteroid 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/Hyperbolic asteroid 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. wumbolo ^^^ 12:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Edits like this one at 212977 Birutė make performing a null edit on corresponding {{ r avoided double redirect}}s such as 212977 Birute necessary to clear them from CAT:AVOID2RUPDATE. What is the purpose of your "temp wikidata" edits? Best regards, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 04:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
{{#invoke:ResolveEntityId|entityid|<page name>}}
to resolve WP pages to their associated WD QID. E.g. {{#invoke:ResolveEntityId|entityid|Ceres (dwarf planet)}}
-> Q596. I've customized this to provide wikilinks to both the WP and WD pages, for convenience, and some additional info, at
Module:Sandbox/Tom.Reding/Tools. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 21:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)The Categorisation Barnstar | ||
For your tireless contributions to many minor planet articles. Hadron137 ( talk) 16:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC) |
Just wondering why if you thought I did something wrong you didn't come talk to me back in February and waited until now tell someone else that you thought I handled something poorly? ~ GB fan 10:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I actually misclicked rollback on your edit . Sorry for the inconvenience. Kpg jhp jm 11:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Truly just curious here, why are you removing the redirects? 48767 Skamander for example. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 20:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I just noticed that if all goes according to plan, Hayabusa2 will bring asteroid samples back to Earth in 2020 and will still have 30 kg of xenon propellant left for its ion engines to flyby another target, tentatively: asteroid 172034 2001 WR1 ( [3]) in 2023. Although it is a plan that may or may not take place, it would be nice to have an article on this asteroid, if you have the interest and time. I have no experience creating articles for minor planets so that is the reason I contact you. Thank you. Rowan Forest ( talk) 00:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello Rfassbind, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
As of 21 October 2018 [update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
For excellent contributions to the Wikipedia, especially in regards to outer space. Fotaun ( talk) 20:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC) |
Hello, Rebestalic here again. Expanding on my reply to your post on my talk page--what would you like me to do? Should I revert all my changes to the minor planet articles or should I remain stationary? Thank you, Rebestalic ( talk) 21:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello Rfassbind,
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Rfassbind. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
See also the list of top 100 reviewers.
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind! I just noticed there's a category Category:Unclassifiable asteroids (Tholen), with 1566 Icarus as its most prominent member. I can not find anything regarding this in the article text, nor do I see any sources (outside of Wikipedia) indicating that Icarus's spectrum is beyond what Tholen can handle. What's the purpose of that category? Same for unclassifiable asteroids (SMASS). Renerpho ( talk) 10:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
---
has been replaced with ***
.
Rfassbind
– talk 11:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Hey, just wanted to let you know on the page of 2019 AQ3, that I would prefer in the spirit of scientific accuracy if the size inaccuracy of 2019 AQ3 was properly represented. While we have 2 'approximate' measurements of its size, from the MPC and an almost public-end site, neither of them are using any more data that they personally have access to than we do. I'm not sure where the ESA gets its size measurement from but I'm assuming it's a very generic one on average asteroid size, but I do know for sure that the MPC only marks asteroids as being 1 km+ if they have a possibility of being that large, not necessarily a firm size constraint. Currently the best I can say to constrain the diameter is that it's between ~500 and ~1800 meters, and anyone currently claiming to have a more accurate diameter than that is making completely unfounded assumptions. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 21:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Because it's now become notable (since it's involved in the largest asteroid-to-asteroid collision in recorded history), the article 6478 Gault was apparently recently created. I've tried to help add missing categories and template, but I know I didn't get everything. Since you're one of the main editors of minor planet pages and ensuring they're consistent, you might want to take a look at (or possibly revise) this awkwardly cobbled-together asteroid stub (especially since it's become a bit of a popular-ish article). Paintspot Infez ( talk) 03:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The minor planet category continuity situation is currently pretty confusing. I have no problem with the categories' use & descriptions as they are (they are definitely an improvement), but retaining the history, and retaining the correct/appropriate histories could be improved. Laying this out as systematically and neatly as I can:
Re: use of "object" in the new cat names. What do you think about this hierarchy:
If we decide to remove "object" from the cat names, I think I can round-robin move all of them around to make all (or nearly) of the above changes. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 23:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I might help you with your confusion.
Hey, wanted to run the idea by you since you seem to be a primary contributor to the article. I was thinking of reformatting Asteroid family so that more data would be easily searchable/sortable: Basically a sort of info table with stuff like a,e,i,age,members etc, as right now it seems to only serve as a cursory summary of asteroid groups when adding more detailed info would likely take up just as much space. What are your thoughts/input into crating that? exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 00:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
So, this is a very correct assessment by you on the matter. The situation is not helped by the fact that I am the one why created the redirect at the Italian Wikipedia. I am unsure how I can improve the our coverage of the subject, however. I would like find some way to write in the limited amount of space available that 175563 Amyrose is named after her. I can't find a good way to do that. Do you have any suggestions? Pls Ping Response― Matthew J. Long -Talk- ☖ 00:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Rfassbind. I see that you reverted my single table of asteroids for each discoverer. I believe that having multiple floating tables is not a good idea, for multiple reasons:
If you really want multiple columns, then I would suggest abandoning tables and using {{ div col}} and {{ div col end}}. The nice thing about these templates is that they can adapt to the width of the user's browser. The sad thing about these templates is that they cannot represent the three separate columns that you have now: you'd have to do something like '''[[2430 Bruce Helin]''', 8 November 1977, {{LoMP|2430|list}} {{ref label|codisc|A|}}
If it were up to me, I would go back to the single table and three columns. What do you think? — hike395 ( talk) 03:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately
1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news –
subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, re. your Template:Largest Jupiter trojans, the figs indicate that IRAS and Akari have the sizes down to the nearest 10m, and WISE to the nearest meter. That is, of course, not true. Could you either include the margins of error, or round off to the number of significant figures? Thanks — kwami ( talk) 05:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
A majority of articles on individual Jupiter trojans, specifically in the Orbit and classification section, include "...ahead of the Gas Giant's orbit..." or "...behind on the Gas Giant's orbit...". These don't seem grammatically correct, as "Gas Giant" should not be capitalized. "Behind on the..." also doesn't seem right, and I suggest changing that to "Behind its", referring Jupiter as "it". There is also another issue with L5 Jupiter trojans, where "trailering" is used instead of "trailing". I've edited some Jupiter trojan articles although there is much more remaining. I'm not sure if you had not noticed this mistake during your revisions on these articles. Nrco0e ( talk) 02:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250
Stay up to date with even more news –
subscribe to The Signpost.
Go
here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) on behalf of
DannyS712 (
talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Rfassbind noticing the external links in the text (as for example Carl Jorgensen, Canadian amateur astronomer † , I was wondering if there is a specific reason to do so. Would you mind if I add them to the references section? Thank you for your time. Lotje ( talk) 05:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
†
are older, legacy references from before we introduced the "Ref · Catalog"
-column using either {{
MPC}}
or {{
JPL}}
templates. In the case of Carl Jorgensen,
(13057), the
†-reference is (almost) identical to what is cited at
MPC/
JPL, and therefore not needed. So I would just remove this legacy link rather than creating a proper citation that will need maintenance as URLs tend to change.*
). Some of them might not be correct or incomplete and need to be updated according to the MPC/JPL sources before the asterisk can be removed.
Rfassbind
– talk 08:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of minor planets: 500001–501000 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/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 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. – dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
placing article [8] per MEDMOS Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news –
subscribe to The Signpost.
Go
here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I've listed Meanings of minor planet names: 100001–101000 at the copyright problems noticeboard. – dlthewave ☎ 21:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I am contacting everyone who participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 to tell you the same discussion is happening again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000. Dream Focus 12:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The Reviewer Barnstar | ||
This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing new articles in Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC) |
Hello, can you please provide an external source to justify the removal of "Suzanne" from the name of the astronomer you did on it.wiki for the article about astronomer Ellen Howell? Please note that italian articles links an external source (see note #2) supporting the presence of "Suzanne"; hence it is not enough to say that en.wiki does not show "Suzanne" in a generic list of discoverers. Best Regards. -- Ysogo ( talk) 22:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
12[3029] Schelte John Bus IIb: December 18, 1956 .... ... .....+[3030] Ellen Suzanne Howellb: May 03, 1961m: March 20, 1982
.Hi. Can you please take a look at Draft:Zava? It is a properly stated conflict of interest contribution. I see from your profile that you are from Switzerland, so I decided to ask for your advice. There was a controversy around launching DrEd in Switzerland that is exempt from the article because I couldn’t quite grasp the nature of this controversy (I am not a German speaker and Google translate is unreliable). These two articles cover it ( Blick, Ktipp). Maybe you can suggest the right wording to describe the controversy? My original wording was On June 20, 2012, DrEd was launched in Switzerland, where it faced opposition from local cantonal pharmacy supervisors, but I am not sure that this is the right description. Thank you in advance. -- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 18:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)-- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 18:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Meanings of minor planet names: 190001–191000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naka River ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Rfassbind,
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Rfassbind,
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Rfassbind,
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
There are now 811 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the
NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some
really cool awards.
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Greetings! Thanks for your extensive work over the years. Could you please review my small copy edit here as I am unsure it makes proper sense? Thanks. -- LilHelpa ( talk) 16:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Rfassbind: Thanks for reacting to the move request. I have no objection against doing this earlier than the suggested 7 days. Would you mind to also close the Talk:(486958)_2014_MU69#Requested_move_12_November_2019 discussion? Renerpho ( talk) 00:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello! You wrote the 13241 Biyo article, but it seems that from the start this included the following inscrutable claim: "The asteroid has not been surveyed by none of the space-based telescopes,..." Logically this might be "...has been surveyed by...", but I'm hoping you can immediately see how the odd version got in and correct it. Thanks! Imaginatorium ( talk) 12:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me out with the disambiguation pages. GovernorLegislator ™
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Rosguill ( talk) | 47,395 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 41,883 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 11,493 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Arthistorian1977 ( talk) | 5,562 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | DannyS712 ( talk) | 4,866 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | CAPTAIN MEDUSA ( talk) | 3,995 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 3,812 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Boleyn ( talk) | 3,655 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Ymblanter ( talk) | 3,553 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Cwmhiraeth ( talk) | 3,522 | Patrol Page Curation |
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Dear Дрейгорич, Tomruen, Kheider, Nixinova, Drbogdan, Nrco0e this is just a reminder to always add Category:Minor planet object articles (unnumbered) to any unnumbered minor planet article you might create in the future. Thanks for noticing, Rfassbind – talk 05:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that you categorized some of my redirects. In general, should I do that myself? Is there a guide or something for doing that that I'm not aware of? Clovermoss (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you switched it back to the less-common spelling.
Even Britannica uses Kura and Aras. — kentronhayastan 03:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. At Meanings of minor planet names: 8001–9000, Special:Diff/942661074, you reverted some changes that I made, for which I'd like to understand the reason:
rmv unhelpful, verbose html-comments, inconsistent with the overall series of partial lists;regarding the HTML comments I added to the transclusion of the {{ MinorPlanetNameMeaningsTableHeader}} header and closing '|}'. I did this because source "linters", like that in AWB get tripped up over this, seeing a table closing without an opening. After spending a few minutes tracking one down, I thought I'd save the next guy the trouble. I'm not clear on why these should be removed, and disagree that they're "verbose", being 34 and 101 characters respectively.
–
) into nbsp-leading spaced endashes ({{Snd}}
) (per
MOS:DASH), which were reverted. Why?—[ AlanM1( talk)]— 04:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
{{bots|deny=AWB}}
. Known issues include list size (number of characters) and template errors (too many templates on page), and erroneous AWB fixes (e.g. 2020 KG
→2020 kg
).
{{
MinorPlanetNameMeaningsTableHeader}}
, analogous to Refbegin/Refend or DivCol?.{{
Snd}}
: partial list can contain 2,000 templates in their "Provisional" and "Ref-Catalog" columns alone. The principal column also contains templates such as {{mpl}}, {{Obscode}} or even {{cite}}. These lists must not crash due template parse errors. Otherwise, a new can of worms will be opened. Of course, if the template in question becomes mandatory to use (I don't see it often), we need to adjust. –
, instead, the point being to force line breaks (if necessary) after the dash? BTW, I only hit this article because it was in my current AWB worklist by accident (I thought I removed all the planet lists). I've now removed them for sure, so it shouldn't come up again. —[
AlanM1(
talk)]— 00:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
{|
can be excluded from the template, as it is both, preceded and followed by other code. Maybe Tom has an idea. I hope, one day, you will return to edit planet lists.
Rfassbind
– talk 01:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 873 Mechthild, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mechthild ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Placing obsolete provisional names as the very first info in the lead violates the very purpose of the lead, which is to orientate the reader with the most important information: name, subject, etc. If a designation hasn't been used in a few decades, it could be included in a name section, or maybe at the end of the lead -- and it certainly belongs in the info box for cross-referencing -- but otherwise it's just clutter.
BTW, thanks for adding all the shape models. That's really nice to have. — kwami ( talk) 13:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
You added a reference to McCullough 1988 in that article without giving the full ref. Would you mind adding it?
Also note you can instal Svick's script (see instructions) to get notified of these errors in the future. It's very useful! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
Since you're one of the expert editors of minor planet redirects and articles, I thought you might want to know that the 2020-02-05 (Feb 5) Minor Planet Circular fixed an error from one of the previous editions. Apparently, the minor planet erroneously called " 249061 Anthonyberger" is actually named " 249061 Antonyberger", without the H. How do we go about updating this on Wikipedia (which currently has the erroneous version with the H) – what needs to be done on the LOMP & MOMP, alphabetical & numerical names page, and redirects? Thanks. Paintspot Infez ( talk) 18:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
{{
NASTRO comment}}
. Thx for your cooperation, your
contribution has been noted.
Rfassbind
– talk 21:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Hello Rfassbind,
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
IS the redirect needed? I want to use the name to describe German surname, now included in Volk. Xx236 ( talk) 11:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Satellite of Earth. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 3#Satellite of Earth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent contributions to List of trans-Neptunian objects. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Solar System? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III ( talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill ( talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 ( talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany ( talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra ( talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren ( talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes ( talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at the top of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 24. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Vitol'd Karlovic Tseraskiy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Vitol'd Karlovic Tseraskiy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vaporwaveboyfriend ( talk) 21:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind, I deleted in wikidata the link to 33441 Catherineprato because it was added in 31441. I tried adding to to correct asteroid but I keep getting a conflict because it is a redirect. Can you have a look? Bye. -- Ysogo ( talk) 06:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your regular contributions to maintaining minor planet list articles! Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 22:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC) |
Hi, are you planning to update the lists and articles with the 179 new minor planet names announced by the WGSBN? They were published in the WGSBN's new bulletin website not too long ago. The Minor Planet Center won't be publishing new names in their circulars now, so you'll have to turn this website from now on. Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 01:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-540-34361-5_9, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🇨🇦 ( talk) 10:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Will do! Red Director ( talk) 01:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. For lists like List of named minor planets: 1–999, it says "This is a partial list", but it also says "It contains a total of 999 entries", which would make it a complete list. So I wonder if the word "partial" isn't unnecessarily confusing, and where under List of named minor planets: A it says "This is a partial list containing all named minor planets starting with the letter A", I assume that means it is also a complete list. I'd remove the word "partial" from the leads, but it may be that some of these lists actually are partial. Are all them complete, at least as of their last update?
Thanks — kwami ( talk) 15:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
Incomplete list}}
, a partial list refers to a list of a larger series (of which it is part of). Best to ask
Tom.Reding who
used the term early on. Yes, the partial lists contain all 22,727 names and are up to date (the term "complete" is ambiguous).
Rfassbind
– talk 23:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC){{{totalitmes}}}
or similarly named parameter. Thinking ahead, as a single letter might be split into two pages one day when the total number becomes too large, a template should already anticipate that, I think.
Rfassbind
– talk 00:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
|totalitems=
: I was thinking that the template could read the last letter (or hypothetically "S-1" & "S-2" whenever there is an inevitable split) and use a #switch statement to find the correct value. This would simplify updating as well, only needing to update 1 template instead of 26 pages (though you're already editing the page to update it...so...|totalitems=
is better?). ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 02:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Yes, that was exactly my concern: It is not a partial {list of MPs beginning with 'A'}. In addition, 'partial' is also ambiguous, as it can mean 'incomplete'. That distinction may be made on these lists, but I doubt it is by many of our readers, and I couldn't count on it being made consistently on WP. So, if I wanted to propose a name for a SSSB, and tried looking it up here rather than the MPC to see if the name had already been taken, I'd be left confused as to whether I could rely on WP to give me that information. (Not that should use WP rather than the MPC.) — kwami ( talk) 01:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
As of}}
might also be helpful. I will focus on the revision of my own update procedure once the new template is finalized. Best,
Rfassbind
– talk 13:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
|total=
for the total #, and optionally support {{
as of}} in the body. I'll populate all list pages with these templates tomorrow if no issues. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 01:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The alphabetical but not numerical header is accurate when taken literally, but even then, because the title of the article will already tell the reader that it's a partial list, I wonder if it wouldn't be more straightforward (and more immediately comprehensible) to drop the word 'partial' and word it something like:
"Partial" is redundant, and makes me wonder why the word is used. I expect that when a word is used, it's intended to convey information, and thus to me it sounds like the article is page 1 of asteroids starting with X. Yes, the wording makes sense when I parse it carefully, but I have to read it twice, and then I wonder if maybe it's badly worded and isn't intended mean what it literally says, and IMO we don't want to ask our readers to do that.
Similarly, maybe,
If we say this is a partial list of named minor planets in numerical order, there is no sense as to how it's partial. My first impression would be that this is probably a list of those minor planets that we've taken the time to add to the list, in numerical order. (Maybe we've only had time to add small fraction to the list.) Nowhere does it say that the list is complete.
— kwami ( talk) 02:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
Your work on updating the list of minor planets and related articles is simply incredible! Double sharp ( talk) 15:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
Hi,
Do you have any suggestion for which colors should be used for minor planet satellites like Dimorphos and 2020 BX12? There doesn't seem to be any convention for this—the inconsistent color-coding between green and default purple for some of these articles has been bugging me for quite a while now. Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 03:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
|background=#E0CCFF
along |minorplanet=yes
explicitly (to avoid troubles with future template changes).{{
NASTRO comment}}
|minorplanet=yes
in article
Xiangliu (moon) has changed the naming/linkage of listed parameters?
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Category:Unnumbered minor planets. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 3#Category:Unnumbered minor planets until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 17:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Solar System 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. Cinadon 36 15:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello
I have created (614688) 2011 KN36 as a redirection, but I don't understand why it doesn't work properly. Regards.
-- Io Herodotus ( talk) 07:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
{{User:PhiH/W|111551872}}
(and save the page) so you can create an "intentional site link to redirect" by clicking on "Add this page" and then click on button "Save site link" on the "Set Item sitelink" page. I will amend above redirect to show you what I mean. OK? Also note the additional information (categories, WD properties) I am adding as well.
Rfassbind
– talk 08:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 811 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 861 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself
here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 [a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size. [b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
There is a new template available, {{
NPP backlog}}
, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 14940 articles, as of 08:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
{{subst:NPR invite}}on their talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
( t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rfassbind,
Hope you're feeling well. I really miss your regular updates to the minor planet lists here! As much as I appreciate you for your tireless effort into maintaining minor planet-related articles, I do think that you truly deserve a long, refreshing break. Anyways, I'll be looking forward to seeing you again here sometime! Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 19:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
{{subst:NPR invite}}on their talk page.
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rfassbind,
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
( t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
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.
Suggestions:
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!
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
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.
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.
New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
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
Hello Rfassbind,
The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.
Reminders:
Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind,
I hope you are fine, and I am wishing you all the best. I wanted to let you know that I am missing you and your contributions. Renerpho ( talk) 00:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Rfassbind! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Category:Cometary object articles has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. C messier ( talk) 17:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of photovoltaic growth, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of photovoltaic growth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I saw on WP:RECORDS that the List of minor planets (numerical) was the longest article at creation date -- with a whopping 2,024,726 bytes! Wow. If I may ask, what was the process of creating the article? Were all the planets already on a list that was elsewhere? I am only asking this because I am curious. Sometimes, it's rather hard to determine the story of articles came to be just from their edit histories. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia! Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk) 01:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)