User talk:Ubiquity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello there Ubiquity, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149
PLEASE PUT NEW MESSAGES OR COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM (NOT HERE!) OF THE PAGE, WITH A NEW HEADING FOR EACH NEW TOPIC. DON'T FORGET TO SIGN YOUR COMMENTS! THANKS!
DYK
— BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 02:38
| On 3 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Love and Pain (Munch painting), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Edvard Munch's painting Love and Pain sold for more than US$38 million in 2008? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Love and Pain (Munch painting). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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. |
4 years with no edits?
How did that happen? A talk page with a welcome message from maveric149 is very rare these days. You could sell it on eBay for a hefty sum. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 02:43
Boyle Roche passed as GA
I have completed my review of Boyle Roche and passed it as a Good Article. Congratulations! This is a fine piece of work, and it's been a pleasure working with you to fix the last 1% or so to bring it to this status. Choess 01:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
PLEASE PUT NEW MESSAGES OR COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, WITH A NEW HEADING FOR EACH NEW TOPIC. DON'T FORGET TO SIGN YOUR COMMENTS! THANKS!
Disambiguation link notification for May 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amber Leaf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallagher Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Ubiquity,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
- Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
- Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
- Reliable Sources for NPP
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
- Backlog drive coming soon
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
- News
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
- Discussions of interest
- A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
- There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
- What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 126.209.22.197 problematic editing. Jayjg (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Ubiquity,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
- QUALITY of REVIEWING
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
- Backlog
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
- Move to draft
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
- Notifying users
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
- PERM
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
- Other news
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Edits
not cool, and not warranted. And zero explanation given...except for "reverted good faith edits, made worse" without explaining just how it supposedly made it worse. Sorry, the elaborations actually made it much better and clearer. And if it's accurate wording or additions, WP policy does not allow wholesale removal of hard for obvious personal "I don't like" reasons. The Philippians section had absolutely no argument from the nontrinitarian perspective regarding it. It was incomplete, big time. Disrespect good valid edits, get reverted again. Seriously. You had literally zero justification in undoing and disrespectding HARD WORK, simply because you "do not like". Against Wikipedia policy. 71.190.1.190 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right, I saw a typo you had ("it" for "is") and misunderstood, and didn't see the other material. Sorry about that. Glad you were able to recover. ubiquity (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. Well, ok, I understand. Some IP address editors can do silly things, I know, and I (over the years) have removed vandalism or nonsense from pages many times, but legitimately. But ok, so you admit you were a bit hasty. It happens. If that's the case, it's ok. But in general, some contributors (whether admins or little IP addresses) over the years (not all, but some) impose and bully for obvious "I don't like reasons". And if it applied to you, I would be saying stuff like "if it's accurate wording or additions, WP policy does not allow wholesale removal of hard for obvious personal "I don't like" excuses or reasons. It's a Wiki, so "NO OWN" is how it's supposed to go. Collaboration and respect and no ownership and no bullying and imposing or disrupting others work (if valid and/or sourced etc) is what Wikipedia demands."
- But anyway, I had noticed (for example) that the Philippians section had absolutely no argument from the nontrinitarian perspective regarding it. The John 10 section, I put the words "and in the context" etc, and that supposedly made it "worse" how? lol..... That's why I was wondering what you meant exactly. It didn't. And regardless, if it's accurate, it's supposed to simply be left alone. Not removed. By other editors. Some will sometimes disrespect good valid edits, and then get reverted again. Seriously. At times they had literally zero justification in undoing and disrespectding HARD WORK, simply because they "do not like". Against Wikipedia policy. Anyway, if certain things need polishing or correction or fixing, that's different. The recommendation by WP is "fix, not remove" if it applies. Take care 71.190.1.190 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Drudge Report
---Concerning edits to Drudge Report page, go check the page yourself and see no banner ads or digital advertising. There is no source for this yet because nobody has noticed or mentioned it in a news story. But if you would take the time you spent undoing the edits to actually go check for yourself if the information is correct, you would see that the edits are correct. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.30.226 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I disagree. It takes only a second to revert a change, which I felt was justified since the article is well-sourced and your addition was not sourced at all. And you yourself say I would not have been able to verify it because "nobody has noticed or mentioned it in a news story." That means that your addition of it to Wikipedia is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is frowned upon. Wait until others have noticed it, and then quote them. Furthermore, you might consider that there are other reasons that you might not have noticed banner or digital ads yourself without the Drudge Report having sworn them off forever. ubiquity (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
![]() |
Hi Ubiquity! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
IMDb as a source
Regarding your edit summary here, per long-standing consensus IMDb should never be used as a source for personal information in BLPs. You can read more about the reasons for this here, here and here. Essentially, it relies on user-generated content and is rife with errors and hoax material. It definitely does not meet the policy requirements of WP:DOB. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Ubiquity,
- Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
- Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
- This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
- Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
- Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
- Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
- Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
- Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
- Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Barnstar!!
Issue
I added actual truthful info and you deleted it. Mattohara (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's possible that it was truthful, but it definitely did not have a source, and the article you pointed to did not mention it. Please find a source and cite it if you want to include the information. ubiquity (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Are you aware that Wikipedia in itself is not a credible source or most of the sources used to create Wikipedia pages. When writing papers you can’t use Wikipedia. Also many people with Wikipedia pages have gone to show how false they really are Mattohara (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Lol Mattohara (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
mules
Did you read my edit summary for what I wrote? What was wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.105.202 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I did. It's simply not true, and what you removed was correct. The definition of species is quite complex, even Darwin thought so. Please read the article, it mentions several cases of interbreeding between species. ubiquity (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Shurijo
Hi, I thank you for your tireless patrolling, and like to share a food of thought on your actions around Shurijo edits of an anon; well, I'd still even now like to call it incorrect along with you, but it's horribly true, even if he cite nothing (I had tried to go to bed after putting a Japanese source about that on its talk, before that anon edited). I notice the message you put suggesting to cite sources, but wonder you guys review the message wording in future. Cheers, --Aphaia (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, the building actually burned down! I cited him because he claimed it burnt down tomorrow (two days in the future when he made the addition), so it seemed like a clear case of vandalism (or planned arson). I'm still trying to figure out how he knew on Oct 30 that it would burn down on Oct 31, but maybe it has something to do with Japan being 13 hours ahead of me AND him being confused about the actual date. As for the message, it's a pre-defined message for "introducing deliberate factual errors." Obviously, reviewers can make mistakes, so the message tells the receiver to cite sources if this were the case. A source might have helped him avoid that error, or at least helped me figure out what he meant. Do you think I owe him an apology? ubiquity (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
NOTICE
Hello, I created a page about Federation of Ileogbo Students Union and you deleted it. I did not in anyway affiliated with the leadership of the association. The Union body is doing tremendously on Radio, Television and other media and I considered it to be added to wikipedia page. The developement the Association is contributing made it to be more recognized — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlusegunA (talk • contribs) 01:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- On 5 February 2016 (3 1/2 YEARS ago), I nominated your page Federation Of Ileogbo Students' Union for speedy deletion, because the article didn't clearly say why the subject was important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. I am not an administrator, and can only nominate articles for deletion; I can't delete them myself, so User:Espresso Addict made the actual decision to delete. I notice that you tried again recently with a slightly different name (Federation Of Ileogbo Students Union), but I didn't even see that one. It was deleted by User:Bbb23, so you should contact him if you think the article should be restored. Good luck! ubiquity (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Ubiquity,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
- Getting the queue to 0
There are now 868 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
- Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
- This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
- Tools
- It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
- It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
- Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
- Second set of eyes
- Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
- Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
- Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
- Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Grandmother
Excuse me i was trying to put up some information about my grandmother and it was removed from the site Dylan Hall Wrexham (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- You'll have to be more specific. What was the title of the article? Was the entire article removed or just your changes? How precisely was I involved?
- As someone closely related to the subject, you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing your grandmother's page. But if you provided adequate sources for your additions, I'll look into it further. You must have done it under a different userid, as there are no entries (besides this one) for User:Dylan Hall Wrexham. ubiquity (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
It was under the people section on Wrexham i had put this
- Pauline Brown (Tony) – (1945-2018) Former lead singer of Tony and the Silver stones ( A Wrexham band who often Played in the cavern Liverpool and was almost signed on by the manager of the beatles in 1963 )
As i was in the process of creating a Wikipedia page on her and her band Dylan .L. Hall (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Put up her page first, if you have adequate sources. Then you can add her to lists that require her to have a page. But I'll ask you again to take a look at WP:COI. You have a definite conflict of interest in writing this page. At a minimum, you should declare this on the Talk page, and explain why you think you can be unbiased. ubiquity (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Right ok sorry about that Dylan .L. Hall (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Barnstar!!
| The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
| This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC) |
47.18.30.82 (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Occult
My edit about occult is factually correct. Check the etymology, I am not lying. (Unsigned comment from User:47.18.30.82 at approximately 22:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC))
IP
I tried to add certain additions onto the goon Wikipedia page, however, you removed them with no warning, for no known reason. I'm very sad and disappointed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:311:2400:50E3:C29:4DE0:FB50 (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- You kept trying to add material that has nothing to do with the word "Goon" (e.g., "* Lucas, has ruined it"), except possibly as an in-joke. I specified the reason as "vandalism." I notice I am not the only editor who reverted you (nor am I the one who gave you the 31 hour block). ubiquity (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
























