Hello, Tazerdadog. You have new messages at Herostratus's talk page.
Message added 05:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello Tazerdadog,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 814 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tazerdadog,

I'm a little confused about the outcome of the conversation at V Pump, now archived, concerning Pages created versus overwritten by the content creation tool.

The last comment there was from you May 19, where you said, Sorry for the confusion, We're going back through the pre-edit filter archives to try and spot where the articles were overwritten by raw machine translations. I interpreted this to mean that your original overture to Village Pump was now moot, that you were calling off the request for help, and that you were taking some other approach to solving the problem, and no longer needed assistance. Is this the correct interpretation? Others must have interpreted it that way, too, because it was a conversation-stopper and there were no further replies, and the conversation was archived.

But the problem of reverted cxt clobbers has not been solved, and remains serious. The risk is, that we will delete perfectly good and mature articles that have been around forever that were briefly clobbered by a cxt creation by some well-meaning editor, and subsequently reverted by alert article watchers. That's all well and good for now, but it won't be good come June 6, when these good articles may be nuked. Since the cxt entry is in the rev history, that triggered the db report to include these clobber-and-reverts in the list of 3602, where the nukebot will remove/quarantine them if nobody gets around to examining and marking them.

That is the risk we face, and it has not gone away. This is an easy problem to solve in SQL as I mentioned elsewhere; you just get the groupwise minimum of the rev-history timestamp field per title on the list, and join that to title where tag=contenttranslation and rev time not equal the minimum thus obtained, and spit out the list of titles. Those are the clobbers, and that list should be a few dozen titles to maybe a hundred or two, not more. (A subsequent clever query against that result set could even enumerate the ones where a clobber was reverted to a previous good version, which would generate the exact list to save, i.e., the clobber-and-reverts; but even just the result of the first query, i.e., the clobbers, would be sufficient to take editor action and solve this.)

Why was the V Pump conversation allowed to lapse? Is someone still looking into this, perhaps proceeding along some other tack to develop a list of the clobbered articles to expose to editors for evaluation? It would be a pity not to deal with this issue. We still have time to do it if we get the list in the next few days, but time is drawing short. Pinging @S Marshall:. Mathglot (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention to allow that interpretation, that was an error. I have no idea what I'm doing with SQL. I recognize that it is a problem, I jut don't know how to solve it. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you know how to unarchive a conversation, can you please do it for that one so I can follow up, or send me a link to a page that explains how to unarchive? (Otherwise I can do it manually.) Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doing it manually should work fine. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchived to here. Mathglot (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

Hello. I was actually working on a close, but had a template problem. I would be happy to volunteer that text for a joint close. I have saved a draft at: User:Eggishorn/sandbox/nsports. Thanks.

@Eggishorn: Let me give the discussion and your proposed text a good solid readthrough. I'll have substantive feedback for you in a couple of hours. Glad to see you again, and I look forward to working with you on this one. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. The intro bit can obviously be gotten rid of, but I think the rest is good. I spent a good chunk of my afternoon reading through the whole thread. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Aaaaand we have two closures which are pretty fundamentally different. I went with a kick it back to the community approach. I posted my proposed text directly under yours. I think that's all I'm up for tonight, though. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, @Tazerdadog:, as I went to bed shortly after we last spoke. I took another look at the two versions and, while the verbiage is quite different, I think the essential points agree. They are, as I see them, 1: SNG's like NSPORTS never override GNG, 2: Only NCYCLING got anything like a hearing in the discussion, which means 3: the rest of NSPORTS needs broad community discussion. I think a joint text can easily be brought together with those points and will post it later this morning. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've posted a combined version. I also posted it within RfC close tags so that I could tell if it was going to work with the internal links and the already-closed sub-discussions. I kept the part from my version quoting WP:NHC because Ithought it was important to lay out that this wasn't simply a vote. I know that most readers will already know this, but there are some that were drawn in who may not be familiar and I wanted to state up front that we intentionally ignored some voices. I then used your sketching out of the two themes and where consensus was visible and where it was not. I kept my clear->rough->no consensus list but added two of your points, the ones about older athletes and lack of community debate on sports criteria. I then finished with a mash-up of the points we both made about needing further community input. I hope you think this adequately captures your views and also the gist of the discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be able to take a quick look in an hour or so. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: An off the cuff proposed text is now up in the same place. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tazerdadog: I agree with your changes and am willing to post it unless you would rather make that edit. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and post it. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Pleasure working with you again on this, and thanks for all your input. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Eggishorn: The word "substandard", which your close uses twice, doesn't mean what you think it means - it's always "of inferior quality", never "a standard that's subordinate to another standard". Something like "subguideline", which isn't a real word but gets your actual idea across, would be much better. —Cryptic 23:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point - I've gone and fixed it as suggested. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and Eggishorn for doing the joint closure on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive. Wondering about the closing rationale. If a person fails to meet GNG, even when meeting NSPORTS, what about other areas of Wikipedia:Notability and WP:V#Notability? Is that still possible? George Ho (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's possible, but whether that's a preferred outcome is the question. There is a real difficulty when considering notability guidelines in the abstract. For, say, a Burmese badminton player, the usual editors are not going to find anything on web searches that would indicate passing WP:GNG and WP:NBADMINTON is a good backstop to prevent deletion unnecessarily. If an editor with access to Burmese language sources, however, states that they definitively don't pass GNG, then deletion is preferable. The same argument could be made for a American baseball player in the pre-1920's timeframe or many other sportspersons. That is the value of NSPORTS. It shouldn't, however, be a way for sports fans to to short-circuit discussions or a way for truly non-notable people to continue to have articles. That was the general feeling at the VP discussion and it reinforced other SNG/GNG discussions I looked for in wikihistory. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your offer at this thread, what's your thoughts about the way of collaboration.I like the email way.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 09:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email is how I've made such closures in the past. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you drafted any prelim. closure? Feel free to start the conversation on email.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since your editing activities are sporadic and I have failed to receive any reply to my above message, may-be you're not interested anymore.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 14:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested, but I was waiting for a third closer. Sorry for the delay in responding. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sign on to review & endorse it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn:--Eh,Sorry...But, Primefac is already on board.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, that's a 3-person closure.Let's get the ball rolling!Winged Blades ^Godric 04:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Well, enjoy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]