User talk:Boleyn - Knowledge (XXG)

5001:

validate the existence of leagues except from the only one that actually matters - the governing body themselves, the RFU. I am at a complete loss as to how I can persuade Knowledge (XXG) that these these leagues exist and the teams included are participating in them. I don't know which country you are in but I can't provide links to BBC Sport or Sky Sport or The Times or The Telegraph, they simply don't exist. This is not malicious content, there is no attempt to spread disinformation, just a genuine fan trying to give a platform to clubs who otherwise have no online presence save for their own club website. You'll note that was a time a couple of years ago when every league in the 'system' section of the English Rugby Union System page was populated with details of dozens of leagues incorporating hundreds of teams competing. The RFU changed the league structure at the start of the 2022-23 season and since then the page has dozens of blanks pages. People like me are slowly trying to reinstate the information and fill in the gaps in our free time. I can't tell you how frustrating and dispiriting it is to spend hours curating pages, getting maps right, uploading the details of clubs only to seen it all taken down for 'insufficient sources'. I hope you can apply some discretion and reinstate the information I uploaded. Thank you.

5075:. I said that the tags were obviously wrongly applied, so far there is no reply to that. Why, because open source software, that this article is about, also most of these about which there are articles in Knowledge (XXG), most often don't have secondary sources, that are required there. Most often there are no articles written about open source software, that is also no peer-reviewed articles. There may be books, but not about all open source software, as i said for some very popular software there are only internet tutorials, wikis, forums or such. Many of these books are also not reviewed. About that article and what the tags are about, the article was written ten years ago, not by me. There are other ways how to estimate the importance of open source software, but this is not about these tags, that are obviously wrongly applied, these tags are for articles about various public issues, but not about open source software. 4543:

templates and stuck into the article. I respect your frustration with unsourced articles, but community consensus has held time and time again that large-scale removal of unreferenced articles (by deletion or by BLAR) is not acceptable, especially without reasonable BEFORE checks to determine if sources exist. I see from your contributions that you are in the habit of redirecting articles "until it has sources and evidence of notability" - do you do any BEFORE checks before doing this? (To be clear: I have often redirected articles for lacking notability, but I make sure to check for sources first; it's not the bold action I object to, but doing it without checking). ♠

5038:- I can't seem to reply to your message so I am replying to my own in the hope you will see it. Thanks for your reply and I have actioned your advice and spent a long time finding and uploading 20 (Twenty) independent references to the existence of Counties 1 Surrey / Sussex to the page in the Draft Space. These come from a variety of sources including the governing bodies, club websites and local newspapers. I sincerely hope that this is enough to persuade Knowledge (XXG) that there is a legitimate interest in having this entry of the English Rugby Union System page. Thanks in advance for your cooperation and understanding, MP17 3581: 3627: 4785: 1825: 26: 5056:. I'm sorry that this is dispiriting, it can be really hard to find reliable sources, and I have had hundreds (maybe thousands) of articles I have created tagged for deletion or moved to draftspace, so I know it doesn't feel nice and I didn't mean to make you feel that way. I appreciate your contributions. It isn't my area of expertise, but there may be a good Wikiproject on rugby union where people can help with sourcing. 4617: 3252: 1629: 746: 144: 5289: 4731: 4460: 2587: 1581: 371: 285: 654: 4096: 2981: 2386: 2264: 2142: 2020: 1898: 1378: 858: 5221: 3811: 962: 4880: 4306: 3946: 3883: 1778: 1472: 1113: 1261: 4952:, nice to hear from you. This was a while ago, but I think was where I couldn't find evidence of enough good sources to add, and doubts of notability. Mainly I would just leave articles if I can't find anything, other times if a search doesn't show up promising results, I would redirect, or propose a merge or AfD. All the best, 3110:. Lists do need refs, as they are classed as articles. I wouldn't feel comfortable when patrolling to put articles fully into mainspace, search engines, etc. when there is no clear idea where the information has come from, especially as search engines are likely to put WP articles at the very top of the search results. 5350:. This was tagged as an unreferenced article. As there are references in the article, I removed this. If you think there are sections of the article where a lack of referencing is of concern, then feel free to delete them if they are dubious, or tag as 'citation needed'. Thanks for your work on this, 4559:

there would be different opinions if I went to Wikiproject Unreferenced Articles, NPP or other forums. I think Wikiproject Unreferenced Articles pages links to some discussions started to try to get a wider concensus on this topic. Again, I do understand your point on this particular article. Thanks,

79:

Hi Boleyn! Thanks for all your work on the geography stubs (some of which need to be tossed for notability) - while I appreciate it, this has added about 130 articles to the November 2023 unreferenced articles category in a few hours. I know there are no hard rules about drive-by taggings, but if you

4192:

tag, where appropriate, is much more helpful than not doing so, even if adding a more specific stub would be even more helpful. There are people who enjoy sorting stubs (I used to do a lot of it), and others who don't: the former are more likely to know their way around the stub hierarchies and find

4000:

Vegas Robaina is the brand name of the cigar and Alejandro Robaina is the name of the individual. It is strange that each of them are completely separate and not in a position to give valid information to someone who wants to know about the brand of cigars, Vegas Robaina. It is a very bad situation,

3152:

if you want a good laugh). These are simply articles that have grown too long for MediaWiki to render efficiently and have had to be split. Sometimes new additions don't fit any of the subsumed lists, and the list of lists page has to be used instead, and that is how sources make their way onto list

5158:

It appears that people like this article a lot in Everything2. If you know, Everything2 is a historic site, grew out of Slashdot (open source news, etc). Not so many people there, but it is working, and the moderators are also active. I don't know where to merge this article, it is in a way unique.

4589:

PKC, this isn't really feeling like a polite discussion at this point, especially as I started my response by saying that I see your point. I was referring to NPP because the article you contacted me about was in the New Pages Feed. Yes, I generally check for sources. I have referenced other places

4365:

This is a 20 year old article, it's been around Knowledge (XXG) even longer than you! It should not be draftified unless there are COI concerns or it is the closure decision of an AFD discussion. Draftification is primarily for recently created articles but I know that you already know this and I'm

3685:

A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then

4542:

I agree with regards to NPP, but that page was created in 2010, so that doesn't apply. A quick BEFORE search would have turned up taxonomic sources; alternately, that page had a taxonbar; glancing down at it would have brought you to several database sources which could easily be inserted into ref

2471:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

2349:

2227:

2105:

1983:

1433:

913:

5115:

primary sources can be used for software, if they are not promotional. The SourceForge project site for ADS-AC is not promotional. By that also, the tags were wrongly placed. In the AI Forums there is a lot of information, among the rest, that written by the other people who were interested, many

2916:

Hi, I think you maybe haven't looked at the page recently - when I wrote it was being actively worked on, I did mean that :) I also don't know of any guidelines/rules that say references sections should be deleted if it doesn't have refs yet, but please direct me to any guidelines like that, as I

4926:

conversion of an article to a redirect. The edit summary says "redirect until it has sources and evidence of notability." It seems to me that making it into a redirect reduces the chances of attracting any sort of sourcing to near zero. Might it not be better to find some sources, or leave it

4558:

I guess it's a difference of opinion, with NPP, of whether the burden for sourcing is on the creator or the reviewer (though a bit different in cases where it has come up in NPP because of significant changes to the article, rather than brand-new creation). Perhaps something to discuss - I think

5000:

Hello Boleyn. As you'll have seen I anticipated this page being removed in the original editing comment I put on the page. As you'll see from my editing history I am trying to be an ally to community rugby in England, a sport that doesn't get media coverage - there are virtually no sources to

3775:

Thanks for tagging the concerns with that article. I looked more closely, and it was actually a lot worse...nearly every section and in some cases every sentence had glaring factual errors. Things that might seem reasonable or what someone who has learned "just a little" about chemistry might

5144:, added to the references. Everything2 is moderated, whoever submits there, what is submitted there is checked, and can be deleted if not accepted. This should satisfy the criterion and thus solve the issue. If i find or if there appear other articles about ADS-AC, i will write here too. 100:

I had no idea I had tagged so many, sorry - I know the tags need to be there as they are unreferenced, but I appreciate it doesn't feel nice when you are working on a backlog and it goes up! I will be mindful of that if I look through any more and see if I can add any sources. Thanks,

2949:

I don't think you should edit war on what seems obvious to you, we all see things differently :) There are no guidelines I know of that ban how I added the reference (please correct me if I am wrong, as I may well be). It wasn't perfect, but was quickly putting together a refernce.

5330:

Hi. so you took away the box that says Paparizou discography needs references, and stated that it has references. I would like to know where are the references for Cyprus chart positions? Cyprus does not have an IFPI so it is *literally* impossible for her to chart there. thanks

4573:

I'm concerned that you keep referring to NPP when many of the articles you're redirecting this way are not new articles. You also didn't answer my question about whether or not you actually check for sources before making these redirects. Do you check for sources?

4755:

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.

4484:

2611:

395:

309:

3638:

won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar.

167:, subject has not received received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Citations included here are either the author's own byline, or mentions in passing about other subjects, especially Pitchfork. 4509:

Valid taxonomic ranks all the way down through species are generally presumed to be notable. There is no reason to arbitrarily redirect them to higher taxa, especially when they have articles about their own subtaxa! I have undone your redirect of

4034:

Ah, I now see that the link "Vegas Robaina (cigar brand)" was redirecting to "Alejandro Robaina", not helpful. I've (a) changed it to redirect to the article on the brand, and (b) changed the "See also" to link directly to the brand. All now seems

38:

Thank you so much for picking up the task of slogging through the articles tagged for notability and determining if they should stay or go. I'd been doing it for several months before other things took priority, so I'm glad the work goes on.

84:

has a very small handful of active users and our backlog is some 116,000 articles. We would also definitely appreciate having an editor of your caliber and experience involved if you'd be interested! Thank you and have a good evening. Best,

3617:

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

4758:

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

4487:

2614:

398:

312:

5094:, it is really difficult when there are subjects where sourcing is so light - sometimes it's about putting them all together in one article rather than separate, so the information is still there. I don't know much in this area, but 4590:

where wider discussions on the topics of sourcing and our guidelines are occurring - feel free to continue discussions on this topic there, but I don't feel comfortable with the tone of your messages and won't reply further here.

3751: 4751: 5246: 1535:"Rather than using a pointless disambiguation page, it'd be much better to move Stephen Kirk (handballer) to Stephen Kirk and add an hatnote for each article saying "For the footballer/handballer, see Steve/Stephen Kirk"." 524:, this was a dab with about 6 entries and another with 4 entries, in no way candidates for deletion, never mind speedy. Unfortunately there is an editor nominating hundreds of dabs for deletions and the guidelines around 987: 2550:

In this case I did a "news" search, not sure which engine maybe Brave Search. I saw 2-3 candidates so I assume that there's more somewhere else. Often in 2024 we forget that not all "independent RS" are findable via

2900:

page. In my experience, if a page has zero references, no reference section is included. Unless you plan on adding refs within the next 24 hours, I would suggest removing the section until references are available.

2607: 699: 391: 4366:

telling you nothing new. In the case of an article this old, draftifying is often just another form of deletion and for a longstanding article, other methods should be used like PRODding or sending it to AFD.

305: 4826: 5140:. A number of them are sites where one can submit, and then it is reviewed, some "less reliable" have even no review. So as such sites are enough for sources, there is an article about ADS-AC in Everything2 3836: 4830: 3343:

Hi. I didn't realize you had created this article (14 years ago) when I posted the PROD. Gives me pause slightly but I still think it's a bit thin. Perhaps in 2024, it looks a bit different to you? Yours,

3600:

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to

3754:, looks like a few days after a draft was separately made, so now we have two drafts on this guy, and a weirdly messed up title. Can you look into how to resolve, preserving content and edit history? 683:. 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 4068:

Thanks, I should have looked more closely. I saw a page tagged fairly as unreferenced and promotional, so restored it to how it had been before, but it seems it needs more careful handling. Thanks.

2547:

Yeah, I've noticed that a lot of articles have lots of useless search results and the few SIGCOV results tend to get lost in there. But sometimes they actually are there, buried among the chaff.

3610:

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the

5303: 5213: 1595: 1541:

situation and there are no other notable people with this name. The dab page is no longer needed, and I will list it at AFD given that you've contested the PROD nomination on it. Cheers —

668: 1797: 1491: 1132: 1317:'s book for deletion. I've found multiple reliable sources and rewritten the article to include them. I think that this article was probably nominated by accident, as you mentioned the 5258: 4325: 3965: 3902: 3848: 3721: 3676: 999: 4899: 2775:

Thanks, it still wasn't an approved draft so I have moved it back to draftspace. It has a reference, which is more than the other article, but still needs a lot of work. Thanks,

2529:, or any evidence of real significance. It is part of a group of hotels, which also appears to be a non-notable group. However, I read over your edit summary and removed it from 5137: 4126:

template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is easy to do via the

1026: 4430: 549:

This applies to the following disambiguation pages: Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Knowledge (XXG) page.

4010: 765:

Individual lacks any sources outside of the page for the 1659 election. There is no purpose for having this page due to a lack of information on the individual in question.

4838: 4834: 605: 331: 4480: 4146: 1030: 826: 228: 81: 5183:, and someone more knowledgeable than me can look it over. If you don't have the original, whichever admin deleted it could revive it for you. All the best, 4740: 4469: 3714: 3611: 2596: 380: 294: 4846: 3530:, I think solely because of the number of sources, it would probably be suggested for AfD if PRODded. It doesn't seem she is notable though. All the best, 2822:, I am using the 'Move to draft' that comes up at the side of myscreen as I have the permissions - do you think there is a way to change it there? Thanks, 1411: 891: 4031:: what is your problem with that? It's a page about the surname, and includes the brand name as a "See also" because it is not a person with the surname. 3668: 3664: 436:

to reinstate those two valid dab pages as they had been taken to AfD and there had not been enough time for other editors to contribute to discussion.

4680: 3315: 2970: 2375: 2253: 2131: 2009: 1887: 1696: 1415: 1407: 1367: 895: 887: 847: 809: 211: 2931:

I don't know if there is such a guideline, but it seems obvious to me that an article shouldn't include empty sections. Next time, please don't add

3019:

was a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that did not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

551:

The above two pages disambiguated only one extant Knowledge (XXG) page and some number of other non-extant pages. This makes them G14 eligible. -

4822: 1414:

how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the

894:

how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the

4736: 4721: 500:

Yeah, the tool I used which gives the "quick delete" option doesn't allow for any explanation. I've updated the AFDs to indicate G14 speedy. -

5308: 2442:

redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

2320:

redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

2198:

redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

2076:

redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

1954:

redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

1600: 1556:

Thanks, but there are several of this name mentioned on Knowledge (XXG). I think an AfD sounds like a good idea - thanks for worknig on this.

5294: 5280: 5134: 5095: 4890: 4872: 4316: 4298: 4142: 3956: 3938: 3893: 3875: 1788: 1770: 1482: 1464: 1123: 1105: 5270: 3860: 3734: 1011: 722: 3650: 3646: 910: 883: 851: 4227: 3686:

you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

59:, and for your work on this. I have done it on and off for years and it's always nice to see others have been making a dent in it too. 4972: 4659: 2592: 2577: 1337: 4684: 3591:

The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to

3319: 3079:

to draftspace because it had "no sources". It was a list of lists and therefore did not require any. I moved it back. Then you moved

2476:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 2354:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 2232:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 2110:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 1988:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 1700: 1438:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 1168: 918:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 813: 215: 3158: 3129: 3096: 2713:

Hi Bolyen, I am wondering why you are deleting my page? And redirecting it. It is correct I just haven’t added most things, thanks

2563: 2515: 1735: 1712: 376: 361: 1101: 3083:

to draftspace because it had "no sources". The entire article is a list of sources, and like other bibliography articles lacking

3076: 2497: 290: 275: 4038:

There seems to have been an article about the brand since 2006, so I don't know why anyone added that unhelpful redirect to the

3580: 5266: 3856: 3730: 3125: 1007: 718: 4514:

on this basis and would appreciate if you would avoid doing this kind of thing in the future, as frankly it makes no sense. ♠

2395: 2273: 2151: 2029: 1907: 1745:

Hi, I have done a bit more work on the dab, you may want to look it over. AfD is an option if you think it still doesn't meet

1387: 867: 692: 4262: 4154: 4672: 4628: 4606: 4166: 4018: 3307: 3263: 3241: 2640:. The reason I did this is because articles older than 90 days should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD, per 1688: 1640: 1618: 801: 757: 735: 203: 155: 133: 3040:

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

5257:

You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself

4624: 4610: 3847:

You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself

3088: 3080: 2800: 998:

You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself

5207: 5138:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Software/Free_and_open-source_software_task_force/List_of_reliable_sources

4676: 4131: 3776:

reasonably write, but what is actually wrong and in at least one case actually contracted the editor's own cited source.

3679:. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits. 3311: 3041: 2473: 2351: 2229: 2107: 1985: 1692: 1435: 915: 805: 207: 4579: 4548: 4519: 4343: 3983: 3920: 2988: 2974: 2622: 2559: 2511: 1731: 1708: 1509: 1150: 1071: 1038: 931: 4744: 4473: 3799: 3051: 2600: 2468: 2411: 2379: 2346: 2289: 2257: 950: 384: 298: 4784: 1675: 1636: 1622: 1586: 1572: 704: 5298: 5020:- keen to hear your thoughts on how I can get this page back up given all I have explained. Thanks in advance, MP17 3010: 2429: 2402: 2307: 2280: 2185: 2158: 2063: 2036: 1941: 1914: 1766: 1590: 1394: 874: 5060:

is the best way to move articles from draftspace to mainspace but with the chance of extra support/mentoring/advice.

4799:

For all the reflists you have added, but especially the ones in Category:Articles lacking sources from August 2008.

4835:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive84#Draft:List of NHL players with most games played by franchise

4217: 2863: 2796: 2243: 2121: 1999: 406: 320: 5238:

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

4842: 3828:

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

979:

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

5336: 4935: 4839:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive85#List of NHL players with the most games played by franchise

4274: 4258: 4172: 4150: 3184: 3009:

disambiguated only one extant Knowledge (XXG) page and whose title ended in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a

2696: 2668: 2649: 2428:

disambiguates only one extant Knowledge (XXG) page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a

2306:

disambiguates only one extant Knowledge (XXG) page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a

2184:

disambiguates only one extant Knowledge (XXG) page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a

2062:

disambiguates only one extant Knowledge (XXG) page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a

1940:

disambiguates only one extant Knowledge (XXG) page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a

4495: 2940: 2906: 1608: 5112: 4277:. It's not an area I have ever been very interested in, but appreciate what stub-sorters like you and Pam do. 4141:

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the

4135: 680: 4294: 3087:

it does not need them unless claims are made, i.e. within the lead or annotations. Can you undo your move of

5159:

There was no article, then someone wrote an article many years ago, thought that there should be an article.

4766: 4575: 4544: 4515: 4356: 3145: 3141: 2859: 2618: 2487: 2365: 1727: 1067: 1049: 1034: 927: 4127: 3692:

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated

2733: 2239: 2117: 1995: 1419: 1133:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 13 § Akuapem North (Ghana parliament constituency

899: 402: 316: 5347: 5332: 5316: 5043: 5025: 5006: 4804: 4710: 4696: 3769: 3149: 1333: 4688: 3323: 2932: 2732:. The article was at too early a stage for publishing - with refernces and it being clearer how it meets 2533:. Hopefully someone can add to it and show more clearly how it is notable. Thanks for your work on this, 1704: 817: 219: 5301:

guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

5179:, but it sounds interesting. It's definitely worth you putting a copy of your article with sources into 4006: 3509: 3137: 3124:

Lists need refs. Lists of lists do not. Think of lists of lists as "advanced" disambiguation pages. See

2867: 2837: 1806: 1593:

guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

5053: 5039: 5021: 5002: 4894: 4320: 3960: 3897: 3370:

as it's in the Dictionary of National Biography. I can see why you questioned it though. All the best,

2641: 1792: 1649: 1486: 1318: 1127: 3626: 1589:

has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the

1167:

You can't CSD an AFD. You have to go through the withdraw/close process. I did the tasks for you. See

5297:

has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the

4984: 4949: 4932: 4207: 3996:

Vegas Robaina is a brand of cigars, Alejandro Robaina is a personal name, shouldn't they be together?

3672: 2757: 2692: 2664: 2645: 1449: 837: 239: 1538: 662: 5073:

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:WeyerStudentOfAgrippa#Secondary_sources_for_open_source_software

4908: 4850: 4491: 4465: 4450: 2936: 2902: 2765: 2760:

should also be. It was created by the same user at the same time and has the same kind of content.

1604: 788: 256: 4001:

especially in foreign wiki entries, to display information that is not relevant in a certain way.

3443: 3367: 3034: 2996: 2457: 2439: 2335: 2317: 2213: 2195: 2091: 2073: 1969: 1951: 676: 5164: 5149: 5121: 5080: 4762: 3759: 3744: 3294: 3154: 3107: 3092: 2736:, it can easily be moved back. In the meantime, please don't let this put you off working on it. 2525:

Hello, RadioactiveBoulevardier. I couldn't find good enough sources to show it meets any part of

2483: 2361: 1175: 637: 595: 555: 504: 464: 424: 120: 90: 43: 4854: 4175:

Boleyn is a very experienced editor and doesn't need to have stubs explained (see the spirit of

4102: 3934: 2729: 2714: 5312: 4800: 4706: 4692: 4655: 3549: 3517: 3491: 3483: 3451: 3414: 3349: 3331: 3290: 3221: 3192: 1850: 1824: 1798:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Pleck, Forne, Sherborne, Dorset

1671: 1546: 1530: 1348: 1322: 784: 568:. Both link to many pages (bluelinks). They don't have to be full articles on the person. See 186: 25: 4176: 4115: 3431: 3176: 688: 591:

I am not confused. I disagree that there are multiple extant articles being disambiguated. -

4337: 4024: 4002: 3977: 3914: 3871: 3781: 3395: 2875: 2849: 2808: 2660: 1802: 1503: 1460: 1314: 1144: 711: 5180: 5057: 4642: 4077: 4061: 3439: 3435: 3277: 3044:. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the 3030: 2992: 2453: 2415: 2331: 2293: 2209: 2171: 2087: 2049: 1965: 1927: 1842: 1838: 1658: 771: 691:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 684: 417: 173: 164: 4976: 4858: 4528:

I see your point. Generally on New Page Patrol, I am not keen to pass unreferenced pages.

3133: 2718: 2677:

Sorry, I think my brain must have not been working well - thanksfor correcting my errors.

2102: 2045: 2013: 1445: 1310: 833: 235: 190: 5113:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_for_software_articles#Primary_sources

1410:, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not 890:, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not 80:

have the time, would you please try to add a source or an external link to some of them?

5116:

years of discussion. The project's web site has nearly 140 000 visitors, it is popular.

3660: 5072: 4904: 4415: 4243: 4052: 2761: 1291: 1245: 1210: 753: 739: 618: 573: 529: 486: 446: 344: 4641:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

3363: 3276:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

3153:

of lists. Once these are placed within subsumed lists or split off into another list.

2526: 2506: 2414:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

2292:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

2170:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

2048:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

1926:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

1657:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

1406:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

886:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

825:

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the

770:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

227:

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the

172:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

5241:

Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.

5176: 5160: 5145: 5141: 5117: 5091: 5076: 4197: 4186: 4121: 3755: 3259: 3245: 3234: 2897: 2841: 2637: 1980: 1923: 1891: 1430: 1403: 1371: 1172: 634: 592: 565: 552: 521: 501: 473: 461: 433: 421: 116: 86: 56: 40: 4326:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Myles Byrne (Fair City)

3545: 3527: 3513: 3487: 3479: 3461: 3447: 3424: 3410: 3406: 3359: 3345: 3327: 3217: 3188: 3180: 1864: 1846: 1542: 5235:

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.

3645:

led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the

653: 4431:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles#Empty references sections?

1837:

For finding a variety of articles that are so bad that they need userfication or

1534: 5351: 5184: 5130: 5098: 5035: 5017: 4953: 4591: 4560: 4529: 4434: 4387: 4331: 4278: 4069: 3971: 3908: 3777: 3531: 3465: 3371: 3203: 3111: 2951: 2918: 2893: 2871: 2866:, but that script is outdated. So, please follow my above suggestion by editing 2845: 2823: 2819: 2804: 2776: 2756:

I noticed you just draftified it; I don't know how to do that but I think maybe

2737: 2678: 2534: 2472: