User talk:Blethering Scot
Date: Thursday, 29 August. Time: 01 hrs 30 min(s) 25 second(s) (UTC+1)
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
Status: Around 
Page curation (2)
[edit]Dear, it would seem that you spend quite some effort at "page curation". While I appreciate and respect your effort, I am afraid I find it little relevant. Whether my actions are "curated" or not, I will stand by them, anyway. So: yes, do keep up the good work! But there might be better fields to apply your drive and energy and motivation ;) Sincere thanks, and my kindest regards! Jan olieslagers (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
3r siege of Tobruk
[edit]I think this is a typo and should be '3rd siege'... Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you are talking about the redirect to the article Axis capture of Tobruk. Whilst the redirect contains a typo, whereby that may be helpful i.e. a likely typo we would not delete it. That's why I was happy to review it as ok. There is already a link of 3rd Siege of Tobruk in place. Blethering Scot 15:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
redirects
[edit]Do you only review/patrol redirects? I still have a number of outstanding other redirects and new pages that need to be patrolled, some dating back to April. I would appreciate if you would review/patrol them when you get some time. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive
[edit]| New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Speed of reviewing
[edit]Hey Blethering Scot. First of all, thank you for your efforts at reviewing at NPR. I am however concerned about your speed of reviewing, especially now that I see Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers stating that you completed 2,023 reviews over the past 24 hours and you've apparently reviewed more than User:DannyS712 bot III over the last 30 days. 2,000 reviews in a day is not a reasonable rate and it's a rate that suggests proper caution and care may not have been given. So, could you slow it down and try to be a bit more thorough? Also, if you're reviewing that many redirects you should consider nominating users to have their redirects auto reviewed at WT:RAL. It's one of our best methods to help keep the backlog down and focus reviewer attention where it should be. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, first of all if you look deeper I very much review the easy ones, and have left any that require more thought, or deeper investigation. There is a huge amount that are creating a backlog for a backlog sake. Re RAL I was actually typing to find out yesterday if it was portable to nominate people, rather than apply themselves, but couldn’t find it. Whilst I do understand your concern about speed, and I’ll take that on board, but I’m not concerned about missing any. During September I was planning on looking at the more difficult ones. Blethering Scot 13:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Even if you believe you're being careful and thorough, I don't think 2k in a day is a reasonable, and I think others would agree. Either way, as you said, you've heard my concern. Anyways, WT:RAL is the place to nominate others for redirect autopatrol. I did so I believe for 100+ people before I became an admin and started managing the list directly instead. The general criteria is 100+ problem free redirects. If they have redirects deleted at RfD they're less likely to be eligible, unless it was a one off or there's been a lot of good work creating redirects since then. I call CSD G6 (technical deletions), G7 (self request), and G8 (target was deleted) no-fault deletions, where we don't hold it against the person being nominated. R3 deletions (implausible typos or misnomers) are something we will consider as a point against their judgement when considering whether to have their redirects autopatrolled. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and a good way to check how many redirects they've created is this link at XTools. Make sure to select the "only include redirects option"! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi both of you. I know it may be against protocol to specifically ask to be nominated, but both of you have reviewed/patrolled my own redirects at least dozens of times each in the past. Maybe one of you could nominate me for this? I did not know it was even available until @Hey man im josh just mentioned it above. If this is out of place, please let me know and ignore my request. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- You can self-request at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list#Requests if you want :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi both of you. I know it may be against protocol to specifically ask to be nominated, but both of you have reviewed/patrolled my own redirects at least dozens of times each in the past. Maybe one of you could nominate me for this? I did not know it was even available until @Hey man im josh just mentioned it above. If this is out of place, please let me know and ignore my request. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and a good way to check how many redirects they've created is this link at XTools. Make sure to select the "only include redirects option"! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Even if you believe you're being careful and thorough, I don't think 2k in a day is a reasonable, and I think others would agree. Either way, as you said, you've heard my concern. Anyways, WT:RAL is the place to nominate others for redirect autopatrol. I did so I believe for 100+ people before I became an admin and started managing the list directly instead. The general criteria is 100+ problem free redirects. If they have redirects deleted at RfD they're less likely to be eligible, unless it was a one off or there's been a lot of good work creating redirects since then. I call CSD G6 (technical deletions), G7 (self request), and G8 (target was deleted) no-fault deletions, where we don't hold it against the person being nominated. R3 deletions (implausible typos or misnomers) are something we will consider as a point against their judgement when considering whether to have their redirects autopatrolled. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)