Loading AI tools
This is being posted on your talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking 
in the editing interface toolbox, located just above the editing window (when editing). You won't need to sign your contributions to articles themselves; you only need to when using talk pages. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance.
 elcome to Wikipedia Ovinus/Archive 1, from WikiProject Editor Retention | |||
| Thank you for registering! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles users have established and adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information. REMEMBER - each policy and guideline page has a discussion you can join to ask questions, add input and contribute your voice towards any current policy or guideline change underway! Join the discussion by going to the talk page of the article. Please take a minute to view a number of quick start pages for an overview of how to work within these guidelines and more information to help you better understand the practices and procedures editors are using. These include: The Newcomers Manual and User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia.
Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wikipedia less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance! Or, better yet, visit The Teahouse where veteran editors are waiting to assist you. | |||
| Policies, guidelines and peer assistance | Help and Tutorials | ||
 |
The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project. |
 |
Tutorial. Step-by-step guide on how to edit. |
 |
Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines. |
 |
How to start a page. If you want to create a new article |
 |
Style Guide. The complete guide to how articles should look. |
 |
Help. The complete help guide |
 |
Copyright. Addressing copyright concerns. |
 |
Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki. |
 |
Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance |
 |
Your user pages and your sandbox. Editing in your own "personal" space |
 |
Adoption program. Request an experienced guide for your first steps of editing. |
 |
Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers. |
Again, welcome! John from Idegon (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC) John from Idegon (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 |
Hello! Ovinus Real,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! John from Idegon (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC) |
 |
The Spoken Barnstar | |
| Not only one, but two articles since the revival. Being the first person since and recording one that is today's Featured Article. Way to get noticed and thank you for your hard work. Keep on talking! Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 14:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC) |
 |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
| Ovinus Real, I am awarding you this Copyeditor's Barnstar in recognition of the tireless work you put forth in copyediting the article Gina R. Poe. Keep up the good work! --Johnnie Bob (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC) |
@Johnnie Bob: Thank you! Glad to be here. Ovinus (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 |
The Technical Barnstar |
| Noticed your great work on multiple templates. Thank you! — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC) |
@Berrely: Thank you Berrely! Nice to hear from you again. Ovinus (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Names of the United States at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
On 20 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Names of the United States, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the name "United States" was originally plural, but gradually transitioned after the Civil War to a singular noun? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Names of the United States. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Names of the United States), 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.
— Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oh...did you add that info?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mark Miller: I don't think my hook selection from the portion of the article which was a content fork negates the point of DYK. Respectfully, I'd appreciate if you could not get too heated over the United States article. I tried in good faith—and as a new editor, having come only a couple months ago—to help improve the article during its GAR. If I did something wrong, I apologize; I didn't know better. Ovinus (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- If I have said something to make you think I'm being heated with that question you are not assuming good faith. The question was simply about attribution and if you had researched and written that portion. I do not doubt your good faith nor do I feel there is anything wrong with being a new editor. Welcome. But it is a concern when a new editor begins making major changes to one of the most viewed articles and begins creating new articles as content forks against policy. The section was not really large enough to be forked.
- But please remember, while you are new, you jumped in the deep end and I think discussing the article and work is important if we are to try to collaborate.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Now, getting back to Names of the United States I was wanting to know if you understood attribution, how to attribute work within Wikipedia and the policy and guidelines for copying within Wikipedia? I cannot find the proper attribution when you copied the content to the new article and there is no tag on the talk page. If I missed it, sorry, if not, is this something I could assist you with?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mark Miller: I agree I jumped too far into the deep end! Of course we should honestly discuss, and I hope we can have others (after Moxy) weigh in too. Sorry about my comment, I was flustered. And yes, I did not provide proper attribution on the destination page; the best I did was this edit. I'll place the appropriate template on the talk page now. Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- No problem and of course Moxy and any other editors should be a part of any consensus. In the future when copying content from one article to another, at minimum, you must provide the following summary (or something close to it), using links to easily check; "Content from [[Article A]] is being copied into [[Article B]] and serves as attribution". The "and serves as attribution" is optional.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice, I will do that! Ovinus (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- You may wish to see the full guidelines, procedures etc. at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge has full information on the merging process. Happy editing and again, welcome to Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice, I will do that! Ovinus (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- No problem and of course Moxy and any other editors should be a part of any consensus. In the future when copying content from one article to another, at minimum, you must provide the following summary (or something close to it), using links to easily check; "Content from [[Article A]] is being copied into [[Article B]] and serves as attribution". The "and serves as attribution" is optional.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mark Miller: I agree I jumped too far into the deep end! Of course we should honestly discuss, and I hope we can have others (after Moxy) weigh in too. Sorry about my comment, I was flustered. And yes, I did not provide proper attribution on the destination page; the best I did was this edit. I'll place the appropriate template on the talk page now. Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mark Miller: I don't think my hook selection from the portion of the article which was a content fork negates the point of DYK. Respectfully, I'd appreciate if you could not get too heated over the United States article. I tried in good faith—and as a new editor, having come only a couple months ago—to help improve the article during its GAR. If I did something wrong, I apologize; I didn't know better. Ovinus (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for posting on my talk page, it makes me glad that people on here aren't cold to newcomers (and that I'm not the only <18), and thanks for the resources. I was gonna redo my user page soon and now I might steal some templates from yours, but do you know if there's a list of these anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mossypiglet (talk • contribs)
@Mossypiglet: Of course. I've found that the switch to online schooling has given a lot more time, and since we're mostly confined to our homes editing Wikipedia is a great way to interact with strangers. Those templates you're talking about are called userboxes, and you can find an index of them here. I would recommend you don't disclose too much identifiable information, especially since you're a minor like me. Also, it's always good practice to add ~~~~ at the ends of your messages on talk pages (but never in articles). That will automatically add your username, talk page and the time you wrote the message, which provides attribution to that message.
In terms of perceived coldness, I think this is a fascinating and frustrating issue. Despite the pleads to "not bite the newcomers" it still happens far too much, often by very experienced editors who feel their time is worth more than helping some random plebeian. Some editors are terse and "alpha-male"-like in their messages, especially edit summaries. Others are more gentle. Of course, both these styles have their pros and cons, but please don't be discouraged if an editor calls your edit "illogical" or "incorrect". Not every edit is good, and even the most experienced editors will have their edits scrutinized. If someone calls you illogical, then that's unacceptable. But sometimes when seeing a particularly strongly worded edit summary I have to take a break, maybe do something else, then return level-headed.
Glad you reached out and feel free to continue to do so. Also, if you ever want to do content collaboration, hit me up! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ovinus Real: You're here for almost the same reason as me, then. My school is in-person but only two days a week, and the teachers give us far from seven hours of work on the off days. Thanks for the info, I knew about the tildes but I always forget. So far I haven't had much interaction with people but we'll see how it goes. Thanks again, Mossypiglet (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Mossypiglet: Cool! By the way, if you want your name to appear lowercase, you can 1. Put {{lowercase title}} at the top of your user and talk pages and 2. customize your user signature by going to Special:Preferences and changing your signature. For example, my default signature is Ovinus Real, but I have set it to Ovinus. Also, if you want to be notified of all changes to a particular page, you can press the star in the top right corner, which will add it to your Watchlist (accessible at Special:Watchlist). Ovinus (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mute (music) 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 Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Mute (music) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mute (music) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Mute (music) you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Mute (music) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 |
The Music Barnstar | |
| Noticed that mute has been promoted to a Good Article. Congratulations! mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC) |
Thank you so much! 
Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting and locking down the Jaylen Waddle page. Was fighting the troll as an anon, but couldn't revert properly. Aulzerenor (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Aulzerenor: Sure thing. Welcome to Wikipedia (?) as an account, and let me know if you need anything! Ovinus (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I just saw that Ovinus Fake was created, stating on their user page that they're an alternative account to yours. Can you let me know if this is true? I just want to make sure that no shenanigans are going on. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: Haha yes, no shenanigans. I have updated my user page accordingly. Do you think the nickname is too confusing? If so I can abandon it; I'm just using it to test a potential future bot. As an aside, thanks for protecting the US presidential candidate pages. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for letting me know! Nope, not confusing at all; your username is fine. I just wanted to double-check just in case. I see a lot of LTA users try and pull that off, so I just try and follow through when I see new users making those sort of claims. :-) If you need to make any more alternative accounts, you can use your main account to do so (though you don't have to). While logged into your main account, just go to Special:CreateAccount and fill out the form as you would usually. This way, the user creation log will show that the alternative account was created by your main account (see here for an example of an account I created), and it'll avoid suspicion since we know it's not an impersonator. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Didn't know that, thanks for the info! I'll use Special:CreateAccount when (and if) I create my bot account. Ovinus (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Awesome! I'm glad you learned something new! Good luck with your bot! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Didn't know that, thanks for the info! I'll use Special:CreateAccount when (and if) I create my bot account. Ovinus (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for letting me know! Nope, not confusing at all; your username is fine. I just wanted to double-check just in case. I see a lot of LTA users try and pull that off, so I just try and follow through when I see new users making those sort of claims. :-) If you need to make any more alternative accounts, you can use your main account to do so (though you don't have to). While logged into your main account, just go to Special:CreateAccount and fill out the form as you would usually. This way, the user creation log will show that the alternative account was created by your main account (see here for an example of an account I created), and it'll avoid suspicion since we know it's not an impersonator. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
 |
The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path | |
| You are doing well, I hope this barn star, which I truly feel you deserve, makes up a bit for my hesitation towards you as an editor at first. You were welcomed here originally by a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, the same member that inspired the award in discussion. I love giving it out, not because I created it, but when it is well deserved. I mean...you put up with me. ;) Mark Miller (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
@Mark Miller: Haha, thank you! You had important concerns and I'm glad you found the copyright issue and brought it up. Thanks again, Ovinus (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have a few real life issues to deal with right now but hope to get back to the article after December 9th.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for this edit. I'm embarrassed that I don't know this book - is it good?? (Er yes this is a personal enquiry, not a Wikipedia thing at all!) Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Haha! I'm planning to bring up Trumpet to GA over the next few weeks, so if you have any input that would be great! This book has been helpful for trumpet pedagogy and in general, that of orchestral brass instruments. I think it gives a good practical perspective, rather than a historical or technical one. It's definitely a good book, and let me know if you're interested in any particular portions of it; I can email you. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh that's great news! I have been incompetently fiddling with it on and off for almost 20 years so it would be wonderful to see something good going on. I probably have nothing useful to add but will certainly keep an eye on it as you develop it. And continue to revert people whose alcohol/testosterone levels get the better of them when they are editing ... and thanks very very much re Ely - I will have a look! Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered:
Alcohol/testosterone levels get the better of them
That made my day!
And sounds good. Ovinus (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered:
- Oh that's great news! I have been incompetently fiddling with it on and off for almost 20 years so it would be wonderful to see something good going on. I probably have nothing useful to add but will certainly keep an eye on it as you develop it. And continue to revert people whose alcohol/testosterone levels get the better of them when they are editing ... and thanks very very much re Ely - I will have a look! Cheers DBaK (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey it's okay, no worries about being unable to finish, I completely understand. If you could post a pass or fail on the part you've done that would be helpful, but if you don't feel like you can say, that's okay too. Hopefully we'll have another chance to work together another time. Good luck with whatever you're doing, I'm sure you'll do great at it whatever it is! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: Thank you for the kind words, and yes, hopefully we can work together in the future! Warmly, Ovinus (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I wish you an outstanding 2021, with lots of happiness and fun! I also wish you a productive Wiki year. All the best! - Victor P. (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 |
Thank you for help with the Jerome Kohl article, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Well my contributions were minimal, but thank you! Rest in peace.... Ovinus (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- It was the minimal help of estimated 15 editors who made it possible, and that's what I like about Wikipedia! I haven't forgotten the Bach cantata, only am under less stress since I found out that it will be for 2022 the earliest. Will split the recordings section off, as already done for BWV 4, but will expand the music part, eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Yeah, that is part of the beauty of it! Thank you for your efforts to keep his memory alive. I never met him, of course, but I gather that he was an incredible and dedicated person. And sounds good, hopefully my FAC comments are occasionally helpful! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- It was the minimal help of estimated 15 editors who made it possible, and that's what I like about Wikipedia! I haven't forgotten the Bach cantata, only am under less stress since I found out that it will be for 2022 the earliest. Will split the recordings section off, as already done for BWV 4, but will expand the music part, eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 |
- yes, they are, and we added to the discography - please look again if you can. Bach music pictured ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- could you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry Gerda! I thought I'd responded earlier saying I would get to it. Made some comments now. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- All fine, no apologies needed, - I responded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! - Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Further down on the page, there are conversations about the current arb case request - I feel I have to stay away - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, rest in peace. Did you know of him before his passing? You sure make a lot of DYK articles, Gerda! Regarding ArbCom, I dare not even look at it; I hope to avoid controversy on here like the plague unless it directly concerns me. But I hope the result is fair and in the best interest of all. Glad you went on a hike! I'm actually planning on going on a socially-distanced walk this afternoon (it's the morning here), and shall look for the flowers and bees too. As perhaps another good sign, a pair of mallard ducks recently moved into my backyard. I occasionally hear them squabbling and quacking while I'm sitting at my desk. They were here last year too! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I knew of him as being in the news, but not personally. I look at Recent deaths, and those with German and/or music, I expand, - yesterday Wolfgang Boettcher. - Enjoy spring! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, rest in peace. Did you know of him before his passing? You sure make a lot of DYK articles, Gerda! Regarding ArbCom, I dare not even look at it; I hope to avoid controversy on here like the plague unless it directly concerns me. But I hope the result is fair and in the best interest of all. Glad you went on a hike! I'm actually planning on going on a socially-distanced walk this afternoon (it's the morning here), and shall look for the flowers and bees too. As perhaps another good sign, a pair of mallard ducks recently moved into my backyard. I occasionally hear them squabbling and quacking while I'm sitting at my desk. They were here last year too! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry Gerda! I thought I'd responded earlier saying I would get to it. Made some comments now. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
Haven't heard from you in awhile and just wanted to make sure you are okay. Cheers! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: It is so good to hear from you! and I haven't forgotten about Christian ethics, I will get there eventually (hopefully before the GAN). Life has been hectic lately—school, mostly—but I'm able to be intermittently on Wikipedia these days. Hope you are well! What other things have you been working on? Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- No worries! Eventually someone will review it! I have been working on Problem of evil and creating Evolutionary theodicy to go on it and be its own article. I also split PofE it and created Religious responses to the problem of evil because everything was in there twice! I have also been working on Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire hopefully adding some balance, and am about to finish up there. Spending a lot of time in my sandbox these days! Please don't worry about CE. I love your input, but understand priorities. I genuinely just wanted to know you were well and not letting the isolation get to you too much. I'm good now that I know you are well and busy. That's cool. Keep on keeping on! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: Well darn, that's a lot of things you're working on! Silly question, but how do you have access to so many interesting sources? Is it part of your university/alma mater? Ovinus (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have the same accesses you do I'm sure. I do have three brousers open at all times, and will spend hours and hours researching and searching and reading and just looking at what is generally said on whatever subject I'm looking at before writing. I want to be sure I have an accurate understanding, so it is not unusual for me to look at a hundred items and then discard most of them once I start writing. I want to use only the best sources that contain internal references to other scholarly work, evidence of an effort at a balanced and unbiased approach, a good presentation of the broad spectrum of evidence, and while I often find originality and insight, it is sometimes too small a point to include even when it is good. I will occasionally skirt the edge a little if the source makes an important point, but generally, I spend a lot of time looking at stuff I never use. But it all gives me a good overview of the topic, which is what I then write. It's not my sources that are any different from anyone else's I don't think, it's the time I spend gathering them that is different. Many that write here have preconceived views, go looking for a few scholars that echo those, and write that one little niche view as if it were all there is. Not good scholarship in my view. I say research first, find out what the views are, then organize and present what seems most important. On [Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire] I have taken a month to research the one small final section on Martyrdom (which is heavily biased) that has now grown into a discussion of the controversies connected to it instead. It's been interesting. I have a whole new understanding of the topic now. That's how it usually ends up for me. Me and Googlebooks and Googlescholar - and Firefox - and Safari - and the wonderful Resource Exchange here on WP. They are stupendous. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: I can't imagine the effort involved, goodness. I already see such a broad collection of sources and to think you selected those from way more... well, the articles are even better off thanks to that broad pursuit. Yeah, preconceived views afflict many poorly maintained philosophy/culture articles, and I usually lack the needed expertise—or ability to balance views—to meaningfully help. So... tone down some exaggerations, tag the article, move on.... I'm finding it hard to write neutrally about trumpet players, let alone some life philosophies I hold strong opinions about! So you're doing an incredible job. And as to your last thought, how we gain new understandings: I find that to be one of the best parts of WP. It's not really comparable to your work, but I learned a lot about musical acoustics while rewriting Mute (music), even dipping my toes into the "rigorous scholarship" sector of that field. For an upcoming article brass acoustics I'll probably have to relearn the differential equations and other fancy math involved... shucks, I'm just a high school kid! :) Thanks again for your work. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ovinus Sorry, no, you are not just a high school kid, you are an amazing, rare and wonderful high school kid! You just keep on keeping on - you'll pass me one day. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ovinus Sorry, no, you are not just a high school kid, you are an amazing, rare and wonderful high school kid! You just keep on keeping on - you'll pass me one day.
- @Jenhawk777: I can't imagine the effort involved, goodness. I already see such a broad collection of sources and to think you selected those from way more... well, the articles are even better off thanks to that broad pursuit. Yeah, preconceived views afflict many poorly maintained philosophy/culture articles, and I usually lack the needed expertise—or ability to balance views—to meaningfully help. So... tone down some exaggerations, tag the article, move on.... I'm finding it hard to write neutrally about trumpet players, let alone some life philosophies I hold strong opinions about! So you're doing an incredible job. And as to your last thought, how we gain new understandings: I find that to be one of the best parts of WP. It's not really comparable to your work, but I learned a lot about musical acoustics while rewriting Mute (music), even dipping my toes into the "rigorous scholarship" sector of that field. For an upcoming article brass acoustics I'll probably have to relearn the differential equations and other fancy math involved... shucks, I'm just a high school kid! :) Thanks again for your work. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have the same accesses you do I'm sure. I do have three brousers open at all times, and will spend hours and hours researching and searching and reading and just looking at what is generally said on whatever subject I'm looking at before writing. I want to be sure I have an accurate understanding, so it is not unusual for me to look at a hundred items and then discard most of them once I start writing. I want to use only the best sources that contain internal references to other scholarly work, evidence of an effort at a balanced and unbiased approach, a good presentation of the broad spectrum of evidence, and while I often find originality and insight, it is sometimes too small a point to include even when it is good. I will occasionally skirt the edge a little if the source makes an important point, but generally, I spend a lot of time looking at stuff I never use. But it all gives me a good overview of the topic, which is what I then write. It's not my sources that are any different from anyone else's I don't think, it's the time I spend gathering them that is different. Many that write here have preconceived views, go looking for a few scholars that echo those, and write that one little niche view as if it were all there is. Not good scholarship in my view. I say research first, find out what the views are, then organize and present what seems most important. On [Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire] I have taken a month to research the one small final section on Martyrdom (which is heavily biased) that has now grown into a discussion of the controversies connected to it instead. It's been interesting. I have a whole new understanding of the topic now. That's how it usually ends up for me. Me and Googlebooks and Googlescholar - and Firefox - and Safari - and the wonderful Resource Exchange here on WP. They are stupendous. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: Well darn, that's a lot of things you're working on! Silly question, but how do you have access to so many interesting sources? Is it part of your university/alma mater? Ovinus (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- No worries! Eventually someone will review it!
 |
Thank you for reviewing Bach's cantata composed for today, - perhaps listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the flowers! I somehow never thought to listen to the very cantata whose article I was reviewing... thank you for the idea. :) Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Would you mind supporting (or not) after changes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Done! Ovinus (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Done! Ovinus (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Would you mind supporting (or not) after changes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| For completing reviews at FAC and copyediting the Armenian Genocide article. Your contributions do not go unnoticed. (t · c) buidhe 06:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
@Buidhe:: Thank you for the kind words. After seeing the denial FAC I had to learn more—I had no idea Turkey denies the existence of the atrocities. If you do go forward with the ACR I hope to be there. Sometimes I have to pause and realize that what you write, what we write, what I review, is basically that topic's "face" to much of the English-speaking world. So it oughta be good, and thank you for ensuring that. :) Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 |
The Original Barnstar |
| Here's to you, Ovinus. I appreciated your thorough reviews of my nominations, and have seen your other work and just wanted to thank you for your contributions to this project. Hope you have a nice summer! ~ HAL333 23:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC) |
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
.jpg)
It's great to see you back at FAC! Thanks for reviewing Hamlet chicken processing plant fire.
(t · c) buidhe 16:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Glad to be back! Also excited to see that Armenian genocide got the star... that's huge. Ovinus (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with Bach's works and his No. 1 especially today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Gerda! Was cool to see this one yesterday evening (for me). :) Ovinus (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ovinus, thank you for copy-editing iPad. I noticed the request at the GOCE Requests page still has your {{working}} template. Please let us know the status of your copy-edit. You can add {{done}} if you're finished or {{partly done}}if you'd like someone else to continue. If we don't hear anything from you in a week or so, we'll open the request up for other editors. Thanks again for your work. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Baffle gab1978: Hi, yes. The editor who requested the copyedit asked that I pause my work while they fix some of my concerns. You can probably remove the request if you like; I will certainly resume the copyedit once that happens. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply; well, it's really the requester's option to remove the request; we don't remove them without good reasons, such as copyright problems with articles or indef-blocked requesters. I'm happy to leave it for a fortnight or so; if the requester doesn't get back to you, I'd suggest either completing the c/e or adding {{partly done}}, in which case we'll give you joint credit in the archive. I'll link this convo from the Requests page with a note so other editors know what's happening. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi again, it's been a fortnight since I posted the above, in which time there's been no edits at the article from either you or Wingwatchers, so I've struck your acceptance at the requests page so another editor can take the request. You're still welcome to c/e the article; if you do so and want credit in the GOCE archives, please let us know. Thanks again and cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply; well, it's really the requester's option to remove the request; we don't remove them without good reasons, such as copyright problems with articles or indef-blocked requesters. I'm happy to leave it for a fortnight or so; if the requester doesn't get back to you, I'd suggest either completing the c/e or adding {{partly done}}, in which case we'll give you joint credit in the archive. I'll link this convo from the Requests page with a note so other editors know what's happening. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my GAN! I quite appreciate it :) I see that you're looking for information on Harry Partch—if you haven't already, I recommend getting access to newspapers.com via WP:TWL! It appears to have lots of cool information on Partch, it's a gold mine (in that the nuggets are there if you're willing to do the digging). Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Of course! That's quite exciting, actually; thanks. I forgot about Newspapers.com; last time I tried to use it (for Conrad Gozzo) I couldn't find much, but he was far more obscure than Partch. Shall take a look. Ovinus (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lonely runner conjecture 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The article Lonely runner conjecture you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lonely runner conjecture for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The article Lonely runner conjecture you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Lonely runner conjecture for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
| Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
On 7 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lonely runner conjecture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that random runners are lonely? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lonely runner conjecture. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lonely runner conjecture), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
|
Hook update | |
| Your hook reached 7,132 views (594.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 |
Hi Ovinus! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Have you ever met any people born in Africa who live in the United States? If so, which countries were they born in? AmericanEditor350 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 |
Thank you for reviewing Bangalore and help improve it to Good Article status! Happy editing! Kpddg (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC) |
Ovinus, how are you handling the Revdels? I am trying to use the script recommended by User:Diannaa at this talk discussion, but it is driving me nuts and really slowing me down. I am spending more time trying to figure out how to get an admin to revdel the copyvios than I am on the actual copyvios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Sandy, yeah it's a little confusing. For now I just find the ID of the first offending revision (usually by Martinevans, but potentially by someone else) and plop at the top
{{copyvio-revdel|start=<id>|end=<current id, or whatever id you removed the violation>|url=[optional url] (see <CCI link>) }}Most of my revdel requests have been declined due to age, tho. I am new to all this as well, so idk if that's best practice. (And I'm a little disillusioned by it all...!) Thank you for helping out! Ovinus (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)- I have been using the script recommended by Diannaa on her talk, but can't figure out the end id; it seems to get it wrong most of the time, so I must be misunderstanding. I don't request revdel on the very old ones (Dianna says more than 50 revisions). Maybe I should start adding the template manually, but the script also places a notice on article talk, which I like. While I'm here ... I know I still owe you a response on a very old query about article leads ... shiny things keep getting in the way, and the lacks of strenuous review of leads at FAC has so demotivated me, along with other FAC factors, that I have mostly disengaged there ... would LOVE to have you review FAR leads!. Is there more you still want to know, or should I archive that old thread on my talk? First, I had my son's wedding ... then a family medical issue ... and now both dear hubby and I have COVID, so it's always something! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- PS, re disillusionment, yes CCI work is soul-crushing ... I have engaged mostly because it's semi-automatic work I can do while I have COVID brain fog, where I don't dare go do a major review of a FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: I think the "end id" is the first edit on which the copyvio was removed, or rendered negligibly small. There's no point revision deleting text unless it is expunged from the intermediate edits as well. So usually that end id is you or me removing the content, or someone else who eventually removed it. As to identifying that edit... unless there's a tool for that, the simplest way is a binary search, I guess, informed by edit sizes.
- Sigh indeed CCI is pain. I think I have similar motivations; too tired to contribute substantial content, but still wanting to contribute how I can. Sorry to hear you and your husband have been sick; I wish you and him a speedy recovery. And thanks for remembering that question! Certainly you can archive it. FAR actually seems like a good place to get leads into shape, especially when it's on an important article. I'm not sure how rigorously leads are reviewed at FAC, but I deinitely notice that leads tend to deteriorate much faster than the rest of an FA. Editors, at least the more pedantic or fanatic among them, see a yummy article like Solar eclipse, Pi, etc. and feel emboldened to add something to the lead. I can't believe that the introduction of Pi for a while was
No. No. No. (For reference, in more advanced mathematics pi is generally defined without reference to geometry. But that has no place in the first sentence of one of the most important constants in mathematics, which we learn about in grade school, and the clarification that it's Euclidean geometry is risible. Pedantry, pedantry of the highest order.) So I replaced it with something nearly word-for-word identical with the version reviewed at FAC, which isThe number π (spelled out as "pi") is a mathematical constant, approximately equal to 3.14159. It is defined in Euclidean geometry[a] as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, and also has various equivalent definitions.
I hope you'll agree with me that's better. :) Ovinus (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)The number π (spelled out as "pi") is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, approximately equal to 3.14159.
- Much improved! The problem with most of our math articles isn't the math; it's the english (I've said that before). In almost all of their leads, one can go to any basic website and find better information than what is in our leads! I'll keep trying to use the script to get the revdel ranges, but it has a toggle about using or not the "end" diff, which I seem to be too dense to sort. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- No kidding... articles written by mathematicians, for mathematicians. At GAN I've been pleasantly surprised by David Eppstein's work on making math articles digestible. I try to do my part when browsing math articles, too, but I'm not a professional mathematician and it's dangerous to make sweeping edits to topics you don't deeply understand. Leads, though, leads... what percent of readers even glance at the body? I wish there were some statistics... Ovinus (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Did you have the pleasure of interacting with Geometry guy? He was the unofficial leader of the GA process at one time, but scarcely edits now ... but he knew how to write math in English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I arrived here too late... that sucks that he's gone. I'll have to check out some of his work. The ability to explain math with clarity is rare and valuable; I try my best. I have a prospective draft at User:Ovinus/sandbox2 that I dreamt of bringing to FAC, but I don't know the last time a math article even passed! One option to make everyone happy is liberal use of footnotes. That way the layman can get the main ideas, while the pedant can edit and enjoy the prolix and unintelligible footnotes. Ovinus (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's a great idea (although for some odd reason, there are objections to the extensive footnotes at Joan of Arc's FAR). When I am over COVID and caught up, will you ping my talk page for me look more closely at your draft? (Because I lose track and get caught up in shiny things :). Right now, my sleep cycles are so out of whack I don't know when I'll "normalize", and once I get out of quarantine, I have real life stuff to catch up on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- You can never make everyone happy, can you?? :P Sounds good, although it still needs a lot of work. I occasionally give math- and CS-related talks to middle and high school students—the latter group, at least the subset of them interested in mathematics, is a good target for the leads of many of these articles—and I'm always learning how to better explain ideas. But if I explain at a similar level, it will be considered too imprecise, even if I'm careful to not oversimplify to the point of being erroneous. Ahhhhhh. Sounds good—again, feel better and thanks for your help at the CCI. :) Ovinus (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's a great idea (although for some odd reason, there are objections to the extensive footnotes at Joan of Arc's FAR). When I am over COVID and caught up, will you ping my talk page for me look more closely at your draft? (Because I lose track and get caught up in shiny things :). Right now, my sleep cycles are so out of whack I don't know when I'll "normalize", and once I get out of quarantine, I have real life stuff to catch up on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I arrived here too late... that sucks that he's gone. I'll have to check out some of his work. The ability to explain math with clarity is rare and valuable; I try my best. I have a prospective draft at User:Ovinus/sandbox2 that I dreamt of bringing to FAC, but I don't know the last time a math article even passed! One option to make everyone happy is liberal use of footnotes. That way the layman can get the main ideas, while the pedant can edit and enjoy the prolix and unintelligible footnotes. Ovinus (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Did you have the pleasure of interacting with Geometry guy? He was the unofficial leader of the GA process at one time, but scarcely edits now ... but he knew how to write math in English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- No kidding... articles written by mathematicians, for mathematicians. At GAN I've been pleasantly surprised by David Eppstein's work on making math articles digestible. I try to do my part when browsing math articles, too, but I'm not a professional mathematician and it's dangerous to make sweeping edits to topics you don't deeply understand. Leads, though, leads... what percent of readers even glance at the body? I wish there were some statistics... Ovinus (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Much improved! The problem with most of our math articles isn't the math; it's the english (I've said that before). In almost all of their leads, one can go to any basic website and find better information than what is in our leads! I'll keep trying to use the script to get the revdel ranges, but it has a toggle about using or not the "end" diff, which I seem to be too dense to sort. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ovinus. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
- Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
- If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
- Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I reverted the COI edits to WP Diamonds. If you still think it doesn't make NCORP, please feel free to re-tag it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for reviewing the GAN of Quadrisecant! However, I noticed that when you passed it, you forgot to do WP:GAN/I#R4 #4 by updating the WikiProject assessment from C to GA. I've done this for you, but in the future, please make sure to change the "class=foo" parameter to GA, or use WP:RATER. Thank you, CLYDEFRANKLIN 17:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for what you told Martinevans123! - I'm doing many things besides Wikipedia and have pics from vacation days to offer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, and you're welcome! Hoping Martin can help with the cleanup and return to editing. Lovely pictures; File:Tiefenbach,_sheep.jpg is my favorite. Ovinus (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Ovinus,
- Backlog status
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.
- Coordination
- MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
- Open letter to the WMF
- The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
- TIP - Reviewing by subject
- Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
- New reviewers
- The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
- Reminders
- Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
- If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, 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.
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
More pictures if you like, but less sensational ;) - You kindly reviewed a Bach cantata for FAC, would you do that again for BWV 56? The coordinator wants to see action. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Gladly; I'll take a look. Ovinus (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for helping. We seem to disagree though what is Wikipedia voice and what not. The ideas of the 1907 writer were never meant to be understood as facts, Please check if that is clear enough now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! (... and now the coordinator is on vacation). - Look at the church where I heard VOCES8. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- ... but another coordinator promoted it, - thank you again for your support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Well done :) Ovinus (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
at rfd Enigmamsg 18:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Enigmaman:
Care to elaborate? Is it due to this trademark ? Feel free to list it at RfD; I have no strong feelings about it.Never mind, was thinking of the wrong redirect. Also, keep in mind that blanking a redirect does not remove it, only creates an empty "article". The best way to delete redirects is to list them at RfD. Ovinus (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Ovinus,
There was a recent RFC discussion at the Village Pump earlier this year that stipulated that only recently created articles should be moved to Draft space. The rule of thumb about what "recent" means is 3-6 months old or younger. Definitely not articles that were created in 2009. So, please do not move older articles to Draft space that shouldn't go there. If you believe an article is inappropriate, then either improve it yourself or tag it for an approved form of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/CFD/etc.). Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- (See Special:Diff/1104639426.) Ovinus (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Dear Ovinus, Thank you for editing my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahab_Moradi&diff=1104780882&oldid=1103114872), but there were some information with reliable sources which you have both deleted the text and the corresponding sources of which. You have also omitted the external links. As in Wikipedia the priority goes to editing articles rather deleting them, I would be obliged if you kindly let me know of the reason and the basis on which you deleted parts of the article and its reliable sources. R30591 (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- (See Special:Diff/1104948230.) Ovinus (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
You removed (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1105059864) the section 'Indian Horoscopes' from Horoscope arguing that it is unsourced information, but you didn't remove Construction of a horoscope in Western astrology section and many other sections from the same page which are also unsourced. Why did you display this biased behaviour? Riteshmmec (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ovinus,
- Invitation
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)
>inane detail
That was literally translated from the original Japanese article. Take it up with them. Eddienahui (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Eddienahui: I could have worded that edit summary more tactfully, and for that, I apologize. However, text like
She was not never had any experience with boys, and was worried that she would never have a boyfriend and would remain a virgin for life
is a policy violation (see biographies of living persons, which establishes stringent guidelines for such content). When translating, it is still your responsibility to only include content which is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and it is other editors' right to remove unsuitable content. Please be careful going forward. Ovinus (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)- Noted. Eddienahui (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- But speak with your Japanese colleagues. Eddienahui (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Noted. Eddienahui (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Just curious...where did I lose you at Geoland? Was there something I could have explained better? Atsme 💬 📧 23:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Hm? I thought I said keep on those misguided AfDs. If you're talking about Cirque Lake, I didn't realize that the lake was actually mentioned on the page after the linked page; knowing that would have led me to !vote keep rather than striking. Basically the linked page said "Grizzly Bear Cirque" and I incorrectly assumed that was the only "cirque" described, and that the reference was in error. So that was sloppy. Ovinus (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I am aware that the notice says it may take four months - however, the first few translations I did found editors and comments immediately. Not sure of the inconsistency - perhaps it was the subject matter (pornography), which I find darkly amusing to put it politely. Anyway, what do I do need to next to get these moving? Thanks. Eddienahui (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Eddienahui: Hahaha, perhaps. Nice work on the translation at Draft:Mitsunobu Nakahara! It's heavily based on one source, but the depth of coverage is easily enough to pass our guidelines. I've cleaned up the article a bit to conform with Wikipedia's style guidelines. I'd suggest you put the bibliography entry into the citation directly (use the
trans-title=parameter to provide the English title). - I'm glad that you developed in draft space—that's what it's for!—and you're probably good to push Draft:Mitsunobu Nakahara into main space. It would be frowned upon for me to "mark it as reviewed", since you came to me, but likely another reviewer will come around and approve it. They might tag it as "heavily relies on one source". Going forward, focus on translating Japanese articles that have multiple sources, as that will ease the concerns of reviewers. For example, your drafts for Hidaka Narumi and Shoujo Commando IZUMI will probably be moved back if you push it into mainspace—editors won't be comfortable with the number of sources right now. Find at least three different sources. That can be hard, I know, but it helps everyone out.
- Let me explain (part of) the unfortunate reason why: We get a lot of machine translations, which are invariably shitty and pollute Wikipedia's content on non-English topics. If you want to see an example, check out User:Ovinus/sandbox—a menagerie of machine translations, e.g. Goryō faith. In fact, the usage of non-English sources at all is somewhat controversial, simply because most editors can't verify the content. Of course, your articles are the work of someone totally competent in both languages. But patrollers (and editors in general) are often wary, which is why, practically speaking, it's especially important to have plenty of sources, if none are in English. It gives the article credence/legitimacy.
- That was long, but I hope actionable. Tl;dr, nice work! Draft:Mitsunobu Nakahara is probably good to go. Look for at least two more sources for your other drafts before pushing them into mainspace. And look to translate Japanese articles which already have three good sources, or add those sources yourself. Sorry that I'm ignorant of Japanese; I'd help you more substantively if I could.
Ovinus (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Well-noted. Will stick to three citations in the future. If can find English source, will input, but unlikely (I speak Vietnamese as well and it's hard to find sources for this in English).
- Anyway, will continue to action. You have been helpful. Thank you. Eddienahui (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Could you explain the logic behind including a section on some rando Nigerian starving to death being seen as deserving of its own section on Wikipedia? I was very rudely accused of trying to "Censor" Wikipedia by some loser incel, yet the section clearly does not belong. A) Other similar pages on foreigners in Japan don't include such section B) The case is literally not notable in Japan C) There is a case of a Sri Lankan in Japan that is more notable and yet hers (Wishma Sandali) is not anywhere featured on her own expatriate page. I can understand if it was included in the "See Also" category, or had its own article, but speaking as someone who actually lives in Japan/actually communicates with the Japanese community, I fail to see how its relevant to an article on foreigners living in Japan. A quick Google search of both (Nigerian Japan VS Sri Lankan Japan) also shows how much more significant Wishma's case is to Japan than Sonny's. So, logically, it doesn't belong. So please explain the logic. Eddienahui (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Without opining on the substance here, calling another editor names is unacceptable and will get you blocked. See no personal attacks, and (more generally) consider that there's a human behind every username. Also, responding to a personal attack with another attack is never a good idea. I know you're frustrated. If you remove or strike the name-calling in your comment, I intend to reply in detail. Ovinus (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Hiya, I saw you tagged me in a comment on the "Strangers" talk page. One thing I didn't consider when citing that screenshot as a source with a Discord link was how it would archive in future that you so kindly pointed out. I have now used the Internet Wayback Archive website to secure accessibility further down the line. Thanks for bringing it up to me. Many thanks, but in future, if you have any concerns, please don't be afraid to bring them up to me directly on my own talk page. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 11:44, 23 September 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. | |
Hello, @Ovinus. I am sorry for bothering you, but it seems you forgot to change the assessment in Talk:Doyle spiral after you passed it. I already changed the assessment. If I made a mistake, you can freely revert my edit. Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that you PROD Tasnuva Tisha article. I read your comment in the tag and resolved the issue. I suspect that the article creator used google translator to create the article and that lead to the confusing texts. You can inspect the article again to see if there is any problem exist in the article. Mehedi Abedin 07:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Which put into draft form my incomplete article on Draft:Lake Unagi. Sorry to annoy you but I hope your Japanese is up to using the Japanese wikipaedia ChaseKiwi (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- @ChaseKiwi: I sincerely apologize for draftifying your article so quickly; I misread the date on the creation as yesterday. UTC is confusing. Thank you for creating the article, and I will move it to mainspace, indeed quickly. Ovinus (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thats all right. I will now see with interest, if a senior editor attracted by the debate, actually feels a not quite inactive maar lake that is not in his back door is worthy of a mention in wikipedia which I thought it was. Since its still geothermally active and in the middle of a town, its not that common a situation for those of us that have seen a few maar lakes.ChaseKiwi (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, you merged Manachaban Middle School recently. I got involved a bit because the author restored the article (twice). I think that is settled now, but I noticed you didn't leave a {{Merged to}} notice on the Talk Page. I've done it now. Just a reminder for the future. MB 18:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Didn't even know that was a thing—I thought attribution was sufficient. I will go back through all the redirects I've created and add that template wherever applicable. Thanks. Ovinus (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- I always thought it was standard practice, but I just checked WP:PROMERGE which says it is an option. It's probably best to do it, but I guess its not a requirement. MB 18:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
