User talk:Hmlarson/Archive/6

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

I noticed that you were unclear regarding leaving closing rationales on AfD discussions. It's actually pretty normal for no particular rationale to be left at the AfD, as you'll see if you review, for example, the log currently getting closed. Closers should, of course, be willing to explain why they closed a discussion a certain way upon request, and you do nothing wrong by asking, but normally the only time I'll leave a closure statement at the discussion is where it was highly attended and contentious and I know someone will be asking anyway, so I may as well get it out of the way. Leaving a closure rationale at every discussion would be often silly and a waste of time ("(Keep|Delete), consensus is clear"). But if you ever want a rationale, just ask, as you did. Closers should be carefully considering each discussion before closing and have a reason they closed it as they did, it's just not always explicitly stated. There is no policy requirement that every closure include a rationale. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: It is remarkable how much you prefer to keep your opinions/rationale to User Talk pages rather than actual group discussions. I would've thought someone who claims to celebrate gender equality would have some notion of what it actually means in different contexts and what contributes to the issue. Obfuscation - the tool of deletionists. Cheers. Hmlarson (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've no idea what you mean here. When an AfD is closed, no further discussion is allowed on it at all, so the closing rationale would be the final word, aside from a DRV. On my talk page, discussion is allowed to the degree I'll permit it, and I'll usually allow it to any degree unless it degrades into personal attacks, sniping, or the like. (And that's attacks or sniping against others; you can snipe at me if you like, I've got a pretty thick skin.) I also don't see how you see "obfuscation" here. I clearly explained why I closed the AfD as I did, both in response to your request and at the DRV. I gave you that rationale publicly and you can cite it anywhere you might like, and you've already done so at the DRV. I don't hold anything against anyone for seeking a review of any admin action of mine; that should be subject to community review in the event of dispute. I have no problem making public why I took an admin action that I took, and I did exactly that here. I didn't in any way try to keep it secret, I freely made public my reasoning on your request. I also have no idea why you bring up gender equality. Gender has nothing to do with whether any given article subject meets the GNG, and it never should. If someone wanted to discriminate against a given gender in regards of notability, I would firmly and absolutely oppose that. Only availability of reference material matters there, and only that should. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Thanks - we get it (and move on) time and time again. Cheers! Hmlarson (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to, take a look at the article about Marie Serneholt which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for nice comments regarding Shamrock Rovers Ladies and others. Much appreciated DjlnDjln (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Djln: - Great work you are doing - thanks very much! It's great reading about the teams. If you're interested in connecting with others who are working on similar articles, check out our taskforce Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Members There's also a number of resources available (or feel free to add to them if you know of others). Hmlarson (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Ipigott (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Two years ago ...

women's soccer league
... you were recipient no. 795 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look at the article about Frans Jeppsson Wall. Appreciate it :)BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I recently became a fan of women's football but my English level is still too low to be able to write a full article and I'll just do some stub every time of British-born athletes who play or have played in the Italian championship, hoping that there are those who en.wiki then I give way to import text and sources in it.wiki. However, if you come in it.wiki you rest assured that you will find almost always reliable sources to which to refer and sufficiently up to date statistics at least for footballers playing in Serie A, the highest level of the Italian women's championship category. On it.wiki women's football project we are few but fierce, ;-)--Threecharlie (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Larson. I really have problems understanding why people can make decisions on deletion that really have no clue at all about women's football. Sorry for my fierce resistance. But that guy literally got me depressed today. He took all the fun I had in updating the profiles from me. I never thought Wikipedia could be such a conservative controlled bulwark. Funafuti1978 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Funafuti1978: - I hear you. You will likely run into a bit of that here - particularly for articles about players who haven't played for a senior national team or "fully-professional league"... and it can be frustrating - but there are options. Just know, there are a lot of us editors here who are not like that and often it's best to disengage with the editors who act more like bullies and trolls. The most important thing to do in cases where the player hasn't played for a senior national team or a team/league that isn't on their incomplete list of leagues, is to ensure that the article has 2-3+ high quality references for the player so that it meets WP:GNG criteria. With the newly added references to the Fife article, this article meets WP:GNG (a wikipedia policy) - which takes more precedence over WP:FOOTYN / WP:FPL (which are essays). If you shoot for that and make sure the article's Talk page is tagged with {{WikiProject Women's sport|footy=yes}}, the Women's Football Taskforce will be able to help support where we can.

It'd be great to have you join the taskforce and help add more articles or contribute to existing articles of Scottish players, teams, leagues, etc. (or any articles in general). If you ever run into a problem or have a question, you can leave a message here or send me an email. Thanks for all of your previous work. It's great to learn more about Scottish players. Hmlarson (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems I am not able to send you an e-mail since I am just new on Wikipedia. Thanks for the help. Is there another way to retrieve your e-mail address? Since I do think I can help Funafuti1978 (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Funafuti1978: Can you try enabling email on your account? Go to Preferences > User Profile > Email options and update the settings. Once enabled, let me know and I'll send you a message through there or that might fix the issue with you emailing me. Hmlarson (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I just did that. Can you mail me now? Funafuti1978 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hmlarson. I'm an editor of the Italian Wikipedia. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks,--Kenzia (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kenzia: - Thanks for letting me know. I've reviewed and added an endorsement. Best of luck. Hmlarson (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hmlarson. Thank you very much for your help and for your endorsement! I'll keep you informed. Grazie, --Kenzia (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenna Fife 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/Jenna Fife until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. — Cirt (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for support. DjlnDjln (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hmlarson, you recently added information about Witteman's first Orlando cap to the article. The club's match statistics, however, list her as an unused substitute (and they should probably know). I'd simply watch the video replay and see who was actually subbed in, but unfortunately I'm on a limited mobile connection right now. Care to investigate? --Headlocker (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Headlocker: The league listed her coming in to play for 19 minutes and is the ref I used, but perhaps they mixed her up with fellow rookie Weatherholt who is listed multiple times in Pride content 12 Hmlarson (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, these references to Weatherholt look pretty convinving to me. Anyway: Currently 15 players are listed with one Pride cap each on en-wp, which is obviously impossible before tonights match. --Headlocker (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Headlocker:Feel free to remove it. Thanks for the heads-up. Hmlarson (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please be careful when reinstating reverted edits by sockpuppets as it might be construed as proxying. The two edits you've reinstated so far are fine, since you have an obvious interest in the subjects, and the edits were of little consequence, though I'd suggest you re-write any prose in your own words. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I'm reviewing the edits that I revert. You could also do the same as it's been all valid content or valid corrections to incorrect content so far. Hmlarson (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

In cases of persistent sockpuppetry, it is fairly standard practice to revert all but the most obviously helpful edits so as to deny recognition to the blocked editor. A good rule of thumb here is that if any sort specialised knowledge of the subject of an article is needed to tell whether or not an sock-edit is constructive, it should probably be reverted.

On an unrelated note, adding the reply template to a comment after the fact doesn't actually do anything. For some reason, notifications only get sent if the edit that added the template also includes a signature. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done - straight restore. Thanks, GiantSnowman 18:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've proposed a speedy deletion of your work at Katie Rodan. It was just at AfD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Katie_Rodan) and at WP:DRV where deletion was endorsed. I created a redirect. But I think the consensus is that the sources aren't there to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Closing editor at AfD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Katie_Rodan) stated "No prejudice to article recreation should a better sourced neutral tone article that contains no original research to be recreated about her that is inline with our policies." Promo material that most of the consensus is based on was removed. Hmlarson (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It still felt like a holography to me, but certainly better than the previous one. I probably jumped the gun on placing the CSD as it was debatable. I'd suggest asking one of the deleting admins for a copy and getting someone (or DRV) to sign off on the new version before moving it to mainspace given the problems of the past. Hobit (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hobit: So you want me to do more work rather than you. Hilarious! Who is designated with "sign-off" privileges? The article was already in the Draft space. Hmlarson (talk) 19:36, 17 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.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Daniel kenneth was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

She may be great but she has only few or no mentions outside her area of expertise and money.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Katie Rodan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Daniel kenneth (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Hmlarson, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Daniel kenneth (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Hobit: You'll do what? Hmlarson (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Contact the deleting admin. After I posted this, I saw that you had already done so, so I just followed up. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks @Hobit:. Appreciate it. Hmlarson (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your addition to Hope Solo has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. 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. The first sentence in the section is verbatim from http://seattlesportsunion.com/on-notice-hope-solo-wins-the-haters-lose/ and several other locations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Walter Görlitz, good catch. Can you just remove the first sentence then? Some of this was added by another user which I attempted to clean up. Hmlarson (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. I didn't check the rest of the content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Your long-standing dedication towards Wikipedia and especially your exceptional work related to Women's soccer is inspiring. You are an amazing contributor and truly an asset to the project. Thank you, Hmlarson, for all the time that you have spent improving the encyclopedia. You deserve all the praise. Yash! 19:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Yash! Means a lot and likewise to you! Hmlarson (talk)

Hi Hmlarson. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

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! Widr (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you look at what tags were there before tagging the page? Did you even give a cursory glance at the state in which you were leaving the page? Slow down a bit! LadyofShalott 22:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did look at the tags. Thanks for catching the issue. Hmlarson (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hmlarson, My name is Stephanie Barker and I am a student at the University of Colorado Boulder. I am currently enrolled in a Digital Anthropology class, which attempts to answer how the digital world affects culture and how culture affects the digital world. For my final project I am doing an ethnography on women Wikipedia users and as a member of the WikiProject Women page I was hoping I could ask you some questions about your experiences editing Wikipedia pages. 1. Have you ever been locked into an intense editing war? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 2. How did you become interested in editing Wikipedia pages and did you have any initial fears/hesitations when you started editing pages? 3. Have you ever been a victim of a mass deletion or other vandalism on Wikipedia? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 4. How would you describe your gender? 5. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experiences as a Wikipedia editor? I would like you to know that I am only sharing my research with my professor and the other students in my class. If you would like me to send you a copy of my final project, I would be more than happy to! Sincerely, Stelba90 (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hmlarson, I'm responding to our revert of each other's edits with regards to the membership status of Sharon Christian/Sharon Holmes in the CSPWC. You edit summary was "say again? where does the wiki article say elected? ok go!". The claim is "Christian was the youngest member admitted to the Canadian Society of Painters in Watercolour." Your To my knowledge, there are two kinds of memberships in the CSPWC; Associate or Elected. Associate members do not need to apply, they can simply pay their membership dues. I have assumed that an "admitted" member is the equivalent of an Elected member, which she does not appear to be. No mention is made of her age when she joined the CSPWC. I consider the claim to have failed verification on two counts; the source does not say that she was admitted/elected and her being the youngest member cannot be verified. I would request that you either restore the tag or that you address the issue with sourcing by providing a reference that does support the claim. Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mduvekot. Thanks for your message. "To my knowledge" is not adequate in most cases on Wikipedia. Another option would be to edit the sentence to accurately reflect the citation. Hmlarson (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hmlarson: That a very astute observation. I might have said, according to the CSPWC and cited [1] . I was explaining how I arrived at my thinking about her membership. Of course I could edit the claim to say what is supported by the source: "Christian had been a member of the the Canadian Society of Painters in Watercolour since 1980". Would you agree with that way of putting it? Mduvekot (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mduvekot: Sounds good. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You are invited...
	Women in Nursing editathon & Women Labor Activists editathon Hosted by Women in Red - September 2016 - #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, could you please contact me? I have a question for you on harassment? Regulation2010 (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your comments on the wikipage about Sharon Christian. I believe all the facts are now supported by verifiable and reliable sources. Note that Christian was an elected member (documentation for this fact is now provided). Icareaboutart (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmlarson (talk · contribs): do you have any advice regarding the Sharon Christian article? I feel as if it was very well referenced by the end, but somehow that got overlooked. I put a lot of time dredging up pre-internet newspaper articles for that project and I feel as if the wiki community somehow dismissed all that work because editors couldn't find the articles themselves...which of course they couldn't because the artist was most active before the internet. Icareaboutart (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Icareaboutart: - I agree. Maybe get some additional input from WP Women artists and similar projects to see what additional improvements can be made. Hmlarson (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hmlarson: thanks! Will try that. I'll have to go back to work on Tuesday. I had a break for ten days, between jobs, so I'm not sure when I'm going to get the time to work on this. But I feel quite passionately about it, when I come across outstanding female artists who have been well-recognized during their day but simply not picked up post-internet. Icareaboutart (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
	Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello, Hmlarson/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is The Wikipedia Library - Oxford University Press.
Message added 02:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

You've been Approved for Scholarships and Journals. Please note the process to get your account activated for WP:OUP may take a few weeks. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
	Announcing two exciting online editathons Women in Food and Drink and Women Writers as well as our strong support for articles on women in connection with Wikipedia Asian Month Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello Hmlarson, great job you're doing here.

Some weeks ago, I made a request to move the article Nigeria Women Football League (NWFL) to Nigeria Women Premier League (NWPL). This technical move was approved by the administrators on the move request page, my understanding was that the article will be moved automatically, but it has been weeks since then and NWPL still remains a redirect to NWFL.

Nigeria Women Premier League is the official name of the top-flight women league in Nigeria. Nigeria Women Football League is an arm of Nigeria Football Federation empowered to manage NWPL, Nigeria Women's Federation's cup and other women football competition in Nigeria. NWFL is not a league as the name implies. The article in question is about the league, not an organization or a body. Please assist in moving to the relevant space, NWFL can be a redirect to NWPL not vice-versa. Thanks. Darreg (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Darreg: It looks like an editor with admin privileges is needed for this particular move as there was a previous page named Nigeria Women Premier League that now redirects to the Nigeria Women Football League. LadyofShalott - is this something that you might be able to assist with? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought you were an administrator. Darreg (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

On 4 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gabe Marzano, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Australian W-League association footballer Gabe Marzano was appointed to the Professional Footballers Australia executive committee in May 2016? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gabe Marzano. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gabe Marzano), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for excellent work on women's football articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Yash! submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Hmlarson (talk · contribs · count · logs) has been editing Wikipedia for over five years and has logged 14K+ edits. Their dedication for articles related to women's football has been outstanding. Not only they have helped promote six article about women football players to the Good article status, three of them have made them eligible for the Quarter Million Award as well. They have written 220+ articles, with most of them being about women's football. They have also worked on various other articles related to the topic and improved their overall quality for years. Women's football is an area that is relatively less edited on Wikipedia and Hmlarson has done a fantastic job maintaining, writing, and improving articles about it. Their dedicated work for the topic through all these years is amazing and inspirational. Editors like Hmlarson are what we need and they truly deserve this award.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations. Thanks for all you do to enhance a deserving portion of the Encyclopedia. Buster Seven Talk 15:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yash!, Kevin, Buster7 - Thanks very much. Hmlarson (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hmlarson/Archive,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hmlarson. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages 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.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hmlarson, I see you removed my PROD from Barbara E. Mink. Can we discuss this? I can't find any non-local sources covering her, which was my PROD rationale. I'm afraid "GNG met" isn't really a rebuttal to that. Could you elaborate here? -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 22:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. As we have differing opinions, the discussion seems more appropriate for the article talk page or an AFD discussion where more editors can review and provide feedback. Hmlarson (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Hmlarson. 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)

File:Roza Shanina.jpg December 2016
	Two new topics for our online editathons Women in Aviation and Women in the Military Our geographical topic of the month is Caribbean Women During the period of 21 Nov - 8 Dec, we are also supporting BBC 100 Women Women in Red

(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello Hmlarson/Archive,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 816 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alex Morgan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ashlyn Harris you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lauren Holiday you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Becky Sauerbrunn you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kim Little you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Alex Morgan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alex Morgan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Ashlyn Harris you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ashlyn Harris for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Lauren Holiday you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lauren Holiday for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Becky Sauerbrunn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Becky Sauerbrunn for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The article Kim Little you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kim Little for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hmlarson/Archive,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Hello Hmlarson: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thank you! Sending joyful wishes to you as well Northamerica1000. Hmlarson (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar of deep recognition for all your efforts on Women in Red throughout the year. Enjoy the end of year festivities and prepare to put more women on the world map in 2017. --Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you and likewise Ipigott! Hmlarson (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

..that the article about Gunilla Sköld-Feiler has been put up for deletion so soon again. I find it very odd.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Patsy Mink page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)