User talk:PogingJuan: Difference between revisions

Welcome to my talk page! Please leave me a message below; new topics should go at the bottom of this page, and please sign your topic by placing ~~~~ (four tildes) at the very end, and please remember to assume good faith on my part.

If I have nominated your article for Speedy Deletion, please read this article which lists the Criteria for Speedy Deletion.
If your article has been deleted, direct your queries to the Administrator who deleted your article.
If anything I have done has upset you, then let's please talk about it! You can click HERE to start a new topic.
I will delete any negative or rude comments.
I can delete comments at any time to maintain the talk page, not to hide my history.

February 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Polytechnic University of the Philippines Senior High School. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on ASEAN Federation of Engineering Organizations

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://afeo.org/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, a small amount of text had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Yup I know and "copyright violations" were not meant. I have been working on Wikipedia for I think, around 12 hours already (with creation of more than 10 articles, etc.). Some of the new articles I have created are actually still under construction. Definitely will be paraphrasing and improving the newly-created articles within the day or next (after sleep, at most). This is well noted. ~Pog ing Juan 22:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

San Joaquin-Kalawaan High School moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, San Joaquin-Kalawaan High School, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buting Senior High School moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Buting Senior High School, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sta. Lucia High School moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sta. Lucia High School, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebio High School moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Eusebio High School, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School articles

Hi, whether the articles are made in good faith or not is not the issue. Nor is COI. I've noticed that Nagpayong High School, Santolan High School, Sagad High School and Kapitolyo High School have also been tagged as possibly not meeting notability guidelines either (by a different user - not by me). All of them are sourced only to an exhaustive database for schools so they do not demonstratively meet WP:NORG, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I've noticed that you created all 9 articles within 45 minutes as well, please take more time. There is no rush. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kapitolyo High School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kapitolyo High School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kapitolyo High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

// Timothy :: talk 16:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sagad High School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sagad High School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagad High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

// Timothy :: talk 16:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Santolan High School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Santolan High School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santolan High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

// Timothy :: talk 16:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nagpayong High School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nagpayong High School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagpayong High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

// Timothy :: talk 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of San Joaquin-Kalawaan High School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article San Joaquin-Kalawaan High School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Joaquin-Kalawaan High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

// Timothy :: talk 17:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Buting Senior High School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Buting Senior High School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buting Senior High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

// Timothy :: talk 17:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Eusebio High School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eusebio High School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eusebio High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

// Timothy :: talk 17:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National democracy (Philippines), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Filipino.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Communist armed conflicts in the Philippines

Hi. First of all, thanks for your work on the NatDem related pages. Since it's clear you are more familiar with the subject than I am, I am thankful for your contributions. Second, though, could I please ask for your opinion on the material I've put on Communist armed conflicts in the Philippines? I wanted to make sure that I've maintained NPOV, but also aptly represented the major players, whether re-affirmist, rejectionist, or otherwise. Also, given that I drew most of the material there from a hodgepodge of ND related wiki articles, I wanted to make sure that I didn't add an organization there which doesn't actually have an armed conflict component. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sta. Lucia High School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sta. Lucia High School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sta. Lucia High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

// Timothy :: talk 20:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ASEAN Federation of Engineering Organizations moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, ASEAN Federation of Engineering Organizations, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Polytechnic University of the Philippines Senior High School

The article Polytechnic University of the Philippines Senior High School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GenQuest ^"scribble" 22:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit day!

Happy First Edit Day, PogingJuan, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 16:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 16:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Manny Pacquiao 2022 presidential campaign

The article Manny Pacquiao 2022 presidential campaign has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no presidential campaign to write about.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster _talk 03:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Leni Robredo 2022 presidential campaign

The article Leni Robredo 2022 presidential campaign has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

He's not announced that he's running for president, so this article is unnecessary.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster _talk 03:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:ASEAN Federation of Engineering Organizations

Hello, PogingJuan. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:ASEAN Federation of Engineering Organizations, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello PogingJuan,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

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 or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Presidency of Ferdinand Marcos

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Presidency of Ferdinand Marcos, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Michael goms (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael goms: I saw that you undid the redirect page's nomination for speedy deletion. Next time, place such tags responsibly. ~Pog ing Juan 16:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lifespan timeline of presidents of the Philippines for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lifespan timeline of presidents of the Philippines is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lifespan timeline of presidents of the Philippines until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Emerald Valley Christian Academy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emerald Valley Christian Academy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerald Valley Christian Academy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

—hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Emerald Valley Christian Academy Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Emerald Valley Christian Academy Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

When you get internet you'll see this. How did you post that message if you didn't have internet? 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, PogingJuan, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

Hello PogingJuan,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 804 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 852 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do 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.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Juan Miguel Zubiri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaya.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

Hello PogingJuan,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000^[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.^[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 12680 articles, as of 16:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

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.

Notes

^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol \| July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

Hello PogingJuan,

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)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of International State College of the Philippines

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on International State College of the Philippines requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Osarius 09:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from International State College of the Philippines, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Osarius 10:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of International State College of the Philippines for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International State College of the Philippines is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International State College of the Philippines until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Osarius 10:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Message from User: Wazzup Carl

Hi, this is Wazzup Carl wikipedia editor in Philippines. I wanna be your friend and I help you to protect your page created (International State College of the Philippines) for vandalism and anonymously act. :> Wazzup Carl (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wazzup Carl:: Hello! Thank you and this is very much appreciated. Anyways, nakapag-request na rin ako ng page temporary semi-protection so the IP users won't be able to edit the article anymore, para 'di na rin tayo mahirapan kaaayos. On a side note, which ISCP campus are you currently "studying"? From Biringan here. :DD ~Pog ing Juan 10:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok tinanggal ko muna yun sa notes brother, kausap ko kase yung gumawa ng ISCP. Wazzup Carl (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

do you have a facebook account, para makontak kita at mag usap about sa wiki page. Wazzup Carl (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PogingJuan I'm not from biringan brother sa Rizal ako nag aaral (ICCT Colleges) Wazzup Carl (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PogingJuan:: kinausap ako non nag-create ng Facebook pages ng ISCP at Supreme E-Youth Government na sana may article den siya but not now kase need den niya ng references at hindi basta basta pede gumawa ng article page na hindi kabilang sa mga advertising or anything. Wazzup Carl (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wazzup Carl:: palapag ng facebook acc mo and i'll message u agad. ~Pog ing Juan 10:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PogingJuan:: Carl T. Delos Arcos Wazzup Carl (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wazzup Carl:: messaged u on messenger. ~Pog ing Juan 10:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message

Hi PogingJuan,

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)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Charles III into Coronation of Charles III. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

The article Coronation of Charles III and Camilla has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wait till reliable sources report on this, WP:CRYSTAL.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dennis Dartman (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature and linter errors

Just a reminder that your signature contains obsolete font tags. They create Linter errors, and it is advised that you change your signature to ~[[User:PogingJuan|Pog]][[User talk:PogingJuan|ing]][[Special:Contributions/PogingJuan|Juan]] ASAP.

The purpose of this message is because Linter errors affect the way the page looks, and with a lot of errors, the page may render badly. To reduce Linter errors, please change your signature.

If the software doesn't accept my replacement signature, let me know, and if that's the case, unfortunately you may have to change it to something else. Sheep (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PogingJuan: Hey, your signature's not changed.

... tags were deprecated in HTML4 and are entirely obsolete in HTML5. This means that the popular browsers may drop support for them at some point. Wikipedia is already preparing for this by delinting code project-wide through Linter. When support is finally dropped, the tags will be ignored in all signatures; any properties such as color and font family will revert to their default values. For this reason, it is recommended that you use ... tags and CSS properties instead. For usage examples, see Wikipedia:Signature tutorial § Real-life examples.

It would be appreciated if you can change your signature to the one above. Thanks. Sheep (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PogingJuan: Third reminder to change your signature to

~<b style="background:beige;font-family:Mistral">[[User:PogingJuan|<span style="color:#FCD116;">Pog</span>]][[User talk:PogingJuan|<span style="color:#0038A8;">ing</span>]][[Special:Contributions/PogingJuan|<span style="color:#CE1126;">Juan</span>]]</b>

ASAP. They cause Linter errors and we don't want such errors. I strongly advise you to change your signature before signing so that I won't have to edit your talk page again to fix them. Sheep (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello PogingJuan,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

AFDs

Hello, PogingJuan,

Is there a reason why you created dozens of separate AFD pages instead of doing one bundled nomination that included them all? You're unlikely to get much participation from AFD regulars who now will have to visit dozens of pages rather than reviewing your deletion rationale in one location. This is really not how AFDs are done and you really did too much too fast. You should have tested the waters with one AFD nomination on an Arizona town instead of doing dozens at once. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the user is notorious for creating articles about non-notable locations, lacking in depth of independent reliable sources. Some of them were already deleted: click here. ~Pog ing Juan 05:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs & CSDs

Hello, PogingJuan,

Once a PROD tag has been removed for a good reason or for NO REASON AT ALL, it can not be PROD'd again. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the reason it was removed. Do not ever add back a PROD tag to an article or file where it has been removed.

And you are using completely nonsensical CSD criteria that don't fit the articles you are tagging. I'm really beginning to wonder about your competency as an editor here on the project and whether or not you need a forced break from editing while you review Wikipedia's deletion policies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, these appear to be retaliation for this edit I made while reviewing their article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines Student Council

I've been reviewing Polytechnic University of the Philippines Student Council, am still looking at notability but some of the words are IMHO puffery. It represents the diversified interests of the students on the university, national, and global issues- this might be puffery and I couldn't find any independent ref linked in the refs that use the word "diversified", a citation usually isn't needed per MOS:LEAD but I couldn't see this discussed in the body. Apologies if I missed one, but could you provide it? Further, looking at the page history, I'm afraid that I couldn't understand how this diff, per Wikipedia:Rollback is obviously vandalism or widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location. If you could elaborate on these two questions that would be great, and many thanks for your work and time! VickKiang (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Thanks for the removal! VickKiang (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFD's

Good morning. While having your work questioned during the review process can be aggravating, retaliatory deletion nominations is not the proper way to go. I suggest you go through those nominations and speedy close all of them, so as to save countless hours of other editor's time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Elijah San Fernando

Hello PogingJuan,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Elijah San Fernando for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Elijah San Fernando for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elijah San Fernando is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah San Fernando (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Linter Errors

Hey! Your current signature (seen below) is producing Linter errors - specifically 3 Obselete HTML Tag errors.

~<span style="background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:PogingJuan|<font color="#FCD116">Pog</font>]][[User talk:PogingJuan|<font color="#0038A8">ing</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PogingJuan|<font color="#CE1126">Juan</font>]]'''</span>

Consider changing it to the following below. The visual look of the signature won't change, but it'll avoid any linter errors in the future.

~<span style="background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:PogingJuan|<span style="color:#FCD116">Pog</span>]][[User talk:PogingJuan|<span style="color:#0038A8">ing</span>]][[Special:Contributions/PogingJuan|<span style="color:#CE1126">Juan</span>]]'''</span>

Thanks. Aidan9382 _(talk) 10:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Going through a run of nominations of articles created by someone with whom you've been in conflict is likely to attract adverse attention, especially when the responses don't show any sign of having investigating the matter. Mangoe (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Joe (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PogingJuan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Joe Roe: No one's harassing nobody. No AFDs from me have been created since ANI. AfD votes were given objectively, agreeing to the respective AfD nominators. Even the initial nominations from me were legitimate nominations for AfDs, not harassment. Most of those articles subjected for deletion were single-sourced. Really templated.

Decline reason:

This does not seem to be the community's verdict on your actions. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Daniel Case: You may want to look at the discussions of Arizona-related AfDs I have started. Majority of them were voted "delete" until "closed procedurally". After the community has agreed that there was WP:HARASS committed, together with the procedural closure of those AfDs, I have never nominated Arizona-related articles again. Can't I even participate on the AfDs re-nomination by another users? ~Pog ing Juan 11:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PogingJuan,

The problem isn't that you participated in AfDs. It's that the only AfDs you either nominated or voted in were nominations or delete votes on articles created by the same editor. Your sole focus was on articles on small towns in Arizona written by one editor when you had previously had an editing focus on subjects regarding the Philippines. You didn't participate in AFDs on any other subject so it wasn't a general interest in involving yourselves in deletion discussions, just deletion discussions on articles by one editor. Whether you were nominating for deletion or voting Delete, you weren't focused on eliminating articles of poor quality in general, just ones by one editor. This is very obvious harassment. I think the only way you could be unblocked is to accept an interaction ban and have no further involvement with this editor's work. And if this situation occurs with a different editor, I don't expect you could ever get unblocked. You need to learn to hand disagreements with editors in a healthier way than targeting their work. All editors experience other people reverting some of our edits, you can't let it become a long-lasting grudge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I'm accepting the concession. ~Pog ing Juan 01:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PogingJuan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The user agrees with Liz's concession.

Decline reason:

I am unwilling to unblock against the wishes of the blocking admin, but even if I were, I agree with their reasoning. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I want you to be clear on what you are getting into. By agreeing to an interaction ban with the other editor, you are agreeing to conditions such as those listed at WP:IBAN and could have no further interaction with them(such as nominating articles they create for AFD). Are you prepared for this? I'm also not sure if Joe Roe would like to see anything else. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is two-way, then my agreeing won't have any reservations. ~Pog ing Juan 05:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the other editor wants to interact with you, but right now we're just talking about you. I don't see a need to log a formal ban on the other editor at this time absent evidence that they are harassing you. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The concern with the absolute one-way WP:IBAN lies with the fact on the possibility of them, for example, undo-ing my edit or contest his edit on my edit, reply to them on a possible discussion (of any sort) they will bring in the future. Such things, with WP:IBAN will definitely bring me in a disadvantaged position. ~Pog ing Juan 11:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:: my reply above ~Pog ing Juan 11:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you anticipate a high likelihood of that occurring? From what I see there was little if any interaction between the two of you prior to October 16th. If it did, you could request a ban on them later. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. ~Pog ing Juan 13:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe, Liz, do you have any additional concerns if an Iban is put in place? 331dot (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure. These were retaliatory edits rather than any sort of genuine dispute, so should absolutely be a one-way IBAN. That PogingJuan apparently doesn't see this would suggest that he isn't really acknowledging what the problem was. Then again, as long as he sticks to the IBAN and doesn't do the same thing with other editors, that doesn't matter. @Onel5969: do you have anything to say? – Joe (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree to a two-way IBAN, as I have done nothing wrong to warrant such an action. In my years of editing on WP, I've never been accused of retaliatory actions. In some of my activities on WP, I may come across this editor, such as what happened to prompt their retaliatory actions. At NPP, if I come across one of their articles, I will review their article just like any other article, fairly, and solely with an eye on WP policies and guidelines. I do not seek this editor out, nor have I in the past. In fact, I was unaware this was still an issue until I received Joe's ping above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be concerned with unblocking. It's less that I think PogingJuan is likely to violate the IBAN (which obviously should be 1-way). It's more that they've still not set out their thought process that led them from "this person has redirected an article I made" to "clearly I should AfD a whole bunch of their articles rather than any other option" - and, more relevantly, why we would think they will be any better at dealing with conflict in the future. Until they have considered that aspect, I wouldn't back any unblock. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: The issue was already acknowledged. It's as if I wanna be blocked again for "AfDing a whole bunch of their articles that ACTUALLY doesn't adhere to WP:RS (and were deleted eventually after the second nomination by other users)" after "that person has redirected a properly-sourced article I made, instead of just putting notability tag or even AfDing it". Of course, it will be avoided in the future. ~Pog ing Juan 17:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PogingJuan: @Nosebagbear: A redirect is a procedural step of WP:NPP, and your article indeed had some issues that still merit a notability tag. Of course by properly-sourced you mean that it meets WP:V, but is borderline at WP:NORG (as a student union is described as a student organisation per the Wikipedia page, so NORG probably applies here). Moreover, you have not successfully explained other issues- your demonstrably inaccurate A11 nominations, reprodding an article after it has been deprodded, and repeatedly misusing rollback to revert good-faith edits without any explanation. Would you acknowledge these mistakes as well? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: Then, the notability tag must have been placed in the first place, instead of just redirecting it. The NPP user haven't even provided explanations for the redirect, when they must have put it—they just deleted it and put a redirect, when the NPP role has the feature to put "notability tags", among others. Meanwhile, the A11 nomination was under the assumption of "the user discovered the place" (i.e. discovered the place and just put up an article of it without any further verifying its notability), not "invented" or "made up", bec definitely they weren't invented or made up. It was proven, though, at the AfDs consensus that some of those articles made by the same user could just be redirected to another article. Some of them were even overlapping. On another note, the rollback issue "might have been misused" (I couldn't honestly remember when or what edits I have used that feature), but definitely, it was in good faith, too. All issues, acknowledged. ~Pog ing Juan 04:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, the A11 nomination was under the assumption of "the user discovered the place" (i.e. discovered the place and just put up an article of it without any further verifying its notability), not "invented" or "made up", bec definitely they weren't invented or made up. It was proven, though, at the AfDs consensus that some of those articles made by the same user could just be redirected to another article. The A11 is absolutely incorrect IMO, as pointed out by Liz, that an article that ends up being deleted/redirected by AfD doesn't mean it qualifies CSD.

The NPP user haven't even provided explanations for the redirect, when they must have put it—they just deleted it and put a redirect, when the NPP role has the feature to put "notability tags", among others- the redirect section does say that The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. In many cases a redirect may be more appropriate. Converting an article to a redirect without prior discussion is allowed and is not tendentious editing so long as proper BRD procedure is followed. Non notable schools, for example, can be redirected to the school district article (US), or to the locality article (rest of the world), with a very brief mention. Convincing the creator is however occasionally challenging; in the case of a redirect reversal, the solution is either draftify or AfD. While it might have been better to leave a detailed note, that edit is not vandalism/obviously disruptive etc... to merit a rollback. VickKiang (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the user discovered the place is a significant misinterpretation of A11. A geographic place not legally recognised but still occasionally very trivially mentioned by WP:RS does not fall under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. VickKiang (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: 1.) Upon learning that the A11 was incorrect, I immediately stopped tagging A11s and just put up AfDs for articles with "the same templating and sourcing". If I didn't acknowledge that "A11 mistakes", the articles would have been mass-A11ed, not mass-AfDed.

2.) Oh, so that was the one I have used the rollback. Well, I have assumed that that was vandalism bec it was emptied with redirect without putting the reason, especially, the article, even with notability issues, is still properly sourced. It's not just right to blank it without a reason, especially when "you also created articles that are definitely qualified for deletion" (thus, the AfD). I mean, there's a reason of the edit summary existing. But alright. ~Pog ing Juan 04:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you also created articles that are definitely qualified for deletion- I dunno if editors should try to trace inappropriate articles other created five years ago, but at least it's good that you are acknowledging that these A11s are invalid. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: The block reason I can't acknowledge, though, upon seeing the block log, is "disruptive editing". Again, no one has engaged in disruptive editing, the reason made me look as if I'm not here to contribute, which is not true. The action might have been "hounding" (although still debatable as there was a "constructive reason" for the AfDs and not merely because they blanked an article I made for no stated reason). I didn't respond to the senseless ANI of Onel5659 because it would be a time waster; I just stopped mass-AfDing the articles WORTHY of deletion. Why do the admins still have to block me when I just voted "delete" on the second AfD nomination? IMO, the first AfD nominations must not have been closed procedurally on the time that the discussions were already going on. The AfDs closer stated it's to "send a message to me" but actually that "message" is senseless—senseless on the grounds that why did they have to disrupt the ongoing objective AfD discussion nominated by a user whom they have problem with, when they can just warn the user and let the objective discussion continue?

The block reason ("disruptive editing") aimed to diminish my contributions on English Wikipedia, just because I AfDed a certain user's articles that were definitely qualified for deletion. If there's something I completely agree I was mistaken, it was to mass-AfD; there could have been no problems if I just AfDed 1 or 2 articles of the same template. The admins who were involved in this blocking (i.e. Liz and Joe Roe) were not even responding. Their views as initiators of this block must be heard, otherwise, what—will this block not be lifted indefinitely? ~Pog ing Juan 06:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in Liz's opinion here as well, however, you mass-AfDed numerous articles one minute after another. I'd be interested to hear how could you perform a full WP:BEFORE search in such a short time (I'm probably regarded as doing a too quick WP:BEFORE search to some, that usually just searches a couple of other related websites in addition to the bare minimum, but I still usually need five minutes. Therefore, I'd be interested how you were able to draw a conclusion so promptly and where you researched prior to the mass AfD. VickKiang (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, I don't support unblocking you, even with an IBAN. You are refusing to acknowledge the reasons for block, complaining about others instead of focusing on your conduct, and give every indication that you will continue to treat Wikipedia like a battleground. – Joe (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: I've already acknowledged the issue already even before this block. I'm not really complaining about the other user, I was explaining the context of why did I AfD.

"Continue to treat Wikipedia like a battleground?" Just because I had a contention with a certain user doesn't mean I will treat Wikipedia like a battleground. Just because I had a contention with another user doesn't mean my purpose in this wiki realm is just to "edit disruptively". The administrators may look at my contributions and from there, tell me if my real intention was just to "edit disruptively" instead of "contributing to the encyclopedia."

Is there really a need of me "absolutely nodding 'yes'" to whatever the blocking administrator says just to appease him? Is the acknowledgment that I will refrain from doing such actions again ++ the IBAN not enough? Do I really have to show an emotion like the one in "pleading emoji"?

C'mon, this was my first block because of a contention since the creation of this account in 2016. Why is there a prejudice from the blocking administrator that by expressing my thoughts, then suddenly "I will treat Wikipedia like a battleground"? Doesn't the blocking administrator think after this block is lifted, the user who has been consistently contributing to Wikipedia with Philippine-related articles will be more cautious with his further actions because he cannot afford to be indefinitely blocked again? Why are you guys acting like that this blocked user is "not clearly here to contribute to Wikipedia"? Why don't you even test the IBAN first? ~Pog ing Juan 17:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PogingJuan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please refer to the message above. ~Pog ing Juan 02:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am in agreement with the blocking admin and others who have commented on the page. You do not get why you were blocked and then said the blocking admin was "prejudiced". RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

PogingJuan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This unblock is to acknowledge the reason of being blocked four months ago. After some time being outside Wikipedia (due to the block), I have once again read the discussions and criticisms regarding the block. Truly, it is wrong to solely and unusually target other users' created articles and nominate them for deletion (even if these are truly qualified for ANI) after having their article nominated for deletion, as these actions obviously show grudge "to get back" and is in, any way, unhealthy to the Wikipedia community. This user promises to avoid such crass behavior in the future, not only in this platform but in any careers he will go through. I am now, once again, inclined to contribute articles (ones that had been on my mind since the block) that can help the general public whenever they'll need it. ~Pog ing Juan 15:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This unblock is to acknowledge the reason of being blocked four months ago. After some time being outside Wikipedia (due to the block), I have once again read the discussions and criticisms regarding the block. Truly, it is wrong to solely and unusually target other users' created articles and nominate them for deletion (even if these are truly qualified for ANI) after having their article nominated for deletion, as these actions obviously show grudge "to get back" and is in, any way, unhealthy to the Wikipedia community. This user promises to avoid such crass behavior in the future, not only in this platform but in any careers he will go through. I am now, once again, inclined to contribute articles (ones that had been on my mind since the block) that can help the general public whenever they'll need it. ~<span style="background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:PogingJuan|<font color="#FCD116">Pog</font>]][[User talk:PogingJuan|<font color="#0038A8">ing</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PogingJuan|<font color="#CE1126">Juan</font>]]'''</span> 15:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=This unblock is to acknowledge the reason of being blocked four months ago. After some time being outside Wikipedia (due to the block), I have once again read the discussions and criticisms regarding the block. Truly, it is wrong to solely and unusually target other users' created articles and nominate them for deletion (even if these are truly qualified for ANI) after having their article nominated for deletion, as these actions obviously show grudge "to get back" and is in, any way, unhealthy to the Wikipedia community. This user promises to avoid such crass behavior in the future, not only in this platform but in any careers he will go through. I am now, once again, inclined to contribute articles (ones that had been on my mind since the block) that can help the general public whenever they'll need it. ~<span style="background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:PogingJuan|<font color="#FCD116">Pog</font>]][[User talk:PogingJuan|<font color="#0038A8">ing</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PogingJuan|<font color="#CE1126">Juan</font>]]'''</span> 15:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=This unblock is to acknowledge the reason of being blocked four months ago. After some time being outside Wikipedia (due to the block), I have once again read the discussions and criticisms regarding the block. Truly, it is wrong to solely and unusually target other users' created articles and nominate them for deletion (even if these are truly qualified for ANI) after having their article nominated for deletion, as these actions obviously show grudge "to get back" and is in, any way, unhealthy to the Wikipedia community. This user promises to avoid such crass behavior in the future, not only in this platform but in any careers he will go through. I am now, once again, inclined to contribute articles (ones that had been on my mind since the block) that can help the general public whenever they'll need it. ~<span style="background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:PogingJuan|<font color="#FCD116">Pog</font>]][[User talk:PogingJuan|<font color="#0038A8">ing</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PogingJuan|<font color="#CE1126">Juan</font>]]'''</span> 15:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello PogingJuan,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

[1] t including another ~6,000 redirects

[2] The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 687: / Line 687: @@
 {{unblock reviewed |1=Please refer to the message above. ~<span style="background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:PogingJuan|<font color="#FCD116">Pog</font>]][[User talk:PogingJuan|<font color="#0038A8">ing</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PogingJuan|<font color="#CE1126">Juan</font>]]'''</span> 02:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC) |decline = I am in agreement with the blocking admin and others who have commented on the page. You do not get why you were blocked and then said the blocking admin was "prejudiced". [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 13:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)}}
-{{unblock|reason=This unblock is to acknowledge the reason of being blocked four months ago. Truly, it is wrong to solely and unusually target other users' created articles and nominate them for deletion (even if these are truly qualified for ANI) after having their article nominated for deletion, as these actions obviously show grudge "to get back" and is in, any way, unhealthy to the Wikipedia community. This user promises to avoid such crass behavior in the future, not only in this platform but in any careers he will go through. I am now, once again, inclined to contribute articles (ones that had been on my mind since the block) that can help the general public whenever they'll need it. ~<span style="background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:PogingJuan|<font color="#FCD116">Pog</font>]][[User talk:PogingJuan|<font color="#0038A8">ing</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PogingJuan|<font color="#CE1126">Juan</font>]]'''</span> 15:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)}}
+{{unblock|reason=This unblock is to acknowledge the reason of being blocked four months ago. After some time being outside Wikipedia (due to the block), I have once again read the discussions and criticisms regarding the block. Truly, it is wrong to solely and unusually target other users' created articles and nominate them for deletion (even if these are truly qualified for ANI) after having their article nominated for deletion, as these actions obviously show grudge "to get back" and is in, any way, unhealthy to the Wikipedia community. This user promises to avoid such crass behavior in the future, not only in this platform but in any careers he will go through. I am now, once again, inclined to contribute articles (ones that had been on my mind since the block) that can help the general public whenever they'll need it. ~<span style="background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:PogingJuan|<font color="#FCD116">Pog</font>]][[User talk:PogingJuan|<font color="#0038A8">ing</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PogingJuan|<font color="#CE1126">Juan</font>]]'''</span> 15:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)}}
 == New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023 ==