User talk:Fbdave

Thanks for the heads up on the East Coast Conference. At the very least, I'll make sure to disambiguate it. Craig R. Nielsen 16:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I help you Malitilkes (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your edit. He's a Valparaiso men's basketball coach.

P.S. Don't write on my user page!--Downwards 22:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on finding the names and putting together the Template:ValparaisoBasketballCoach template. You are correct that you wouldn't normally link the same name twice in an article, much less a template. However, in the case of someone serving two non-consecutive terms, the name would be linked twice because it maintains the consistency of the look and also, when on the Homer Drew page, both instances will be bolded to stand out. The same thing comes up with United States presidents template (Template:US Presidents) with Glover Cleveland, and you'll notice he linked for each term. I've put the link back in, feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any further concerns. Craig R. Nielsen 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As always, two steps ahead of me. Great work. Craig R. Nielsen 09:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, nice article so far. You go to Valparaiso? I plan on attending Valparaiso next year.--aviper2k7 17:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fbdave, I wanted to let you know that I believe the current standard for linking on the athletic conference templates is to link to the school article and not the athletic one. Among other reasons, not every school has an athletic article, thus it retains a uniform style. I caught a debate on it months ago and it referenced Template_talk:Atlantic_Coast_Conference. Though it's only a short discussion there, it has become the standard, as even the BCS conferences (every member of which has an athletic article) keep their templates linked to the institutions. I'm not set on reverting it right now, but I just wanted to let you know the history. Craig R. Nielsen 04:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was using Template:Pioneer Football League as a basis. It links Drake to the athletic team, not the university. There are other templates that use the athletic teams — Template:Atlantic Coast Conference, Template:Big 12 Conference and Template:Mountain West Conference.Fbdave 19:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right you are. Personally, I like the Mountain West or Big 12 ways of doing it (maybe parentheses and italic just the team moniker). However, that does make the template noticeably larger. Any thoughts about what a good new standard would be? I'd be happy to let you choose and give it a run on the PFL and Mid-Con and to follow your lead on the Horizon, which I've been prepping for the Crusaders move. Craig R. Nielsen 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Mountain West way better than the Big 12 way. Fbdave 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Josh Wilson (high jumper), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Pascal.Tesson 23:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work you did/are doing on the List of MAC championships, it's tough to track down some of that old information. I also see that you're a Valpo man. Sorry we (WMU) had to beat you guys on Sunday. But I'm also a Golden Grizzly, so I've seen enough of VU winning :) X96lee15 00:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that tenure and capacity would be perfectly useful additions to the template. I think that the conference affiliation history would be better suited to the main text, since it's not really a "quick bit" of info, and could be really sloppy in the template if it's not formatted properly.

In fact, I like the first two ideas so much that I'm going to go add them now.....--fuzzy510 02:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I have received so much static from all these users about this. Most of them were asking me why I wanted to wait a week to remove them. I didn't want to have to deal with this anymore, so I just went with the consensus we had from the discussion, which was to remove it. --Ksy92003 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... I'm leaving you this note because you recently made edits to one of the Major League Baseball roster pages. I've made a proposal for standardizing the format, structure and content of these pages here and would appreciate your input so that we may reach a consensus. Thanks. --Sanfranman59 06:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Greg, and I've been editing the season game logs of many of the MLB teams this year. I noticed you reverted an edit I made on the Nationals game log regarding the clarification of Billy and Ryan Wagner. I understand your decision to do so, but I think it might be more accurate to leave the name of Ryan Wagner un-clarified ("Wagner") on the Nats log while keeping Billy Wagner in the clarified form ("B. Wagner"), while on the Mets log keeping Billy Wagner in the un-clarified form ("Wagner") and putting Ryan Wanger in the clarified for ("R. Wanger"). It just makes sense to me that the Nats log should be from the standpoint of a Nationals fan, who would know that their pitcher is Ryan, not Billy (as established by the bolding of names of a team's pitchers while leaving opposing pitchers unbolded), and that the Mets log should be from a Mets standpoint (vice versa). I won't revert your edit back until I hear back from you about your opinion. It's not really a big deal to me, I just thought I'd ask you what you thought. Thanks, Greg.Greggreggreg 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree to an extent. But I think it looks odd to look down the "Save" column on the Mets log and see "Wagner, Wagner, B. Wagner, Wagner, etc.". It makes it seem as if there are two Wagner's on the team. Do you see what I'm saying? I mean, the bolded names already establish which team's each pitcher pitches for in the game, so I don't see why it's necessary to make such a distinction. That's why I proposed only using the first initial for the opposing Wagner. Any thoughts on this?Greggreggreg 23:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is definitely in order, I would say. I'm going through a creating a crapload of stubs - if you wouldn't mind created the disambig page, that'd be great. --fuzzy510 00:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. If I really were leaving, I'd leave a more noticeable note. Certainly not in an edit summary. i apologize for any misunderstand. I use "adios" in my edit summaries whenever I remove an unnecessary section after discussion about its inclusion in the article. I honestly didn't think that could be misunderstood as me leaving Wikipedia. I apologize. From now on, I'll try to make a less-confusing edit summary, but should I forget, just be aware that that's all that means. Trust me, if I were leaving for whatever reason (which I hope doesn't happen for a long time), I would post somewhere on the project page my departure. Don't worry, I'll be around for a while.

However, if you have noticed, my number of edits has declined over the past week. That is because this week for us High School students was STAR testing, and this morning I took the SAT. I've been studying a lot for all of these tests and haven't been able to contribute nearly as much. But now that all the tests are completed for now, my contribution tally should increase back to its previous amoung. --Ksy92003 03:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? You're the one who started reverting my edits. In either case, I left an explanation at Talk:2007 Washington Nationals season#Reverting changes. Look at this and don't come all after me for reverting your edits when you reverted me first. Thank you. --Ksy92003 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a quick pointer that if you want to say "Joe Smith's [whatever]", you don't actually need to pipe the link. Just put "Joe Smith" in double-square brackets and then add "'s" outside them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On June 22, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jack Lelivelt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for nomintating Ross Detwiler for DYK, and citing my creation of that. Very cool. Thanks. -- Sholom 18:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your entry to the List of Career Home Run Leaders by Birthplace that listed Dave Roberts as the player with the most career HRs who was born in the U.S. territory of "Okinawa" (it was actually called the Ryukyu Islands, with Okinawa being the most important island), since Roberts was born in Okinawa on May 31, 1972, which actually was a few weeks after the island was returned to Japanese administration on May 14, 1972. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Civil_Administration_of_the_Ryukyu_Islands The only major leaguer to be born in the Ryukyu Islands under U.S. administration was infielder Bobby Fenwick, born in U.S.-occupied Okinawa on December 10, 1946, but he did not hit any career homers. I was actually pretty pissed that Roberts was born after the handover, since I wanted to add him when I added Carew for the Canal Zone. BTW, if the handover date listed on the Wikipedia page is incorrect, then I apologize and will revert your entry (and will fix the Ryukyu Islands page as well). Cheers, AuH2ORepublican 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both 1972#June and Okinawa Island refer to the hand-over as occurring on June 17, 1972. However, United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands is a little bit confusing. Then look at the sentence, 'After a referendum, on May 14, 1972, control of Okinawa was given back back to Japan, and USCAR was abolished.' Does this mean that control was returned to Japan or that the referendum occurred on May 14? Fbdave 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that May 14, 1972 was the date of the referendum but that Okinawa and the other Ryukyu Islands then under U.S. administration were returned to Japanese rule on May 15, 1972. See http://www.okinawa.usmc.mil/About%20Okinawa/History%20Page.html and http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0XPQ/is_2002_May_20/ai_86028298. I'm not sure what exactly occurred on June 17, 1972 (other than the Watergate break-in), but it doesn't appear to have been control of the territory. Too bad, because I would have loved for the flag of the Ryukyus to appear there next to Dave Roberts's name. AuH2ORepublican 23:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 18 September, 2007, a fact from the article Ross Detwiler, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 05:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing the colors on the CFB Schedule template. If you wish to change it, please discuss it first on the Template's talk page. Those colors were chosen by the CFB WikiProject and are used on several articles and lists.↔NMajdan•talk 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ... you had the right idea with [1]. Mediawiki is a little quirky, though with complex templates. Sometimes you have to purge it a couple of times to get it to show up. --B (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mike Palagyi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for you contribution. --Royalbroil 06:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I chose those colors because they are similar to the ones used in the football template. Go ahead and change them back should you feel the old colors are more appropriate. CrdHwk (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those case pages which you've tagged are referenced: by the case citation, at the article's start. Can you please remove your tags, and not do that again on other such pages. It's a bit of a bore. Wikidea 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like these are the cases, not actual references. Am I wrong? Fbdave (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They're the case citations - so when you want to look at a case, you'd find the corresponding report (so, All ER, for instance is All England Reports; AC is Appeals Cases), and then the following number is for the page. So it is an actual reference! I mean of course more references could be added, footnotes and so on, but I think expansion of the article is necessary before that: something needs to be written further before there are references, hence the stub tags! Please, you put them up, so make the effort to take them down. Wikidea 10:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform me what is unreferenced on this page please.

List of National Express West Midlands Bus Routes

Westbromdepot (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to delete the article even if it should have been moved from my user space. The only reason I didn't just start the page was because it had no substance and I hate creating sub-stubs. Phydend (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Phil Forgit, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Forgit and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted your move of this article, as there seems to be no reason for it. Every other railway station article in the UK has either 'railway station' or just 'station' in lower case after the name, why should Dalrymple be the odd one out? --- Dreamer ⁸⁴ 23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that the website connection to the racetrack, and hence the race, is a reference in the infobox. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit completely? That particular section was not well-written, and there was no need for three paragraphs on the athlete in comparison to the rest of the article. I at least want to rewrite things like the "Saturday March 10" thing, but when I try rewriting, I realize how much of it is superfluous ... but if I get rid of the superfluous text, I get reverted with no explanation. What gives? Spell4yr (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this on Talk:Valparaiso Crusaders. Fbdave (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on /Current players by birthplace, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because /Current players by birthplace is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting /Current players by birthplace, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the co-ordinates serve as a verifiable reference, but if not so, I can add another...(?) LaFoiblesse (talk) 07:20 2008-06-09 (GMT)

Category:Baseball statistics currently contains two pages sandboxed in your user page.

• User:Fbdave/Home run leaders by birthplace
• User:Fbdave/Win leaders by birthplace

Neither appears to have been edited very recently, which leads me to guess these were some cleanup that got missed. Figured you probably'd like to know. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Template:Current sport from the articles Syrian Premier League 2008–09, UAE League 2008–09 and Chinese Super League 2009 again. Please read the guidelines at Template:Current sport. A current event template is supposed to be used to warn our readers that an article is being massively edited and/or rapidly changing. If an article is stable (as is the case with the three articles mentioned above), there is no reason to warn our readers. Templates like this one are not supposed to be used to merely inform our readers that something is ongoing, since that is already obvious from the article itself. --Conti|✉ 15:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to add optional columns for high scorer, rebounder and assists? I would like next season to be able to have the same information as I use at 2008–09_Michigan_Wolverines_men's_basketball_team#Schedule.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fairly easy to do. However, the new columns will need to be optional (as you suggest), because most articles that use the template do not have the information in it. Fbdave (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 13:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry mate, clicked the wrong user! It's midnight here, forgive me :p JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 13:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fbdave! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 870 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Mark Adams (basketball, born June 1956) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of my idea that I posted on WT:NASCAR? --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Major League Baseball win leaders by birthplace 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/List of Major League Baseball win leaders by birthplace until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Fbdave! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

I see that you have made edits like this. There is now debate on including such templates in yearly bowl game articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Navboxes_in_bowl_game_articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article 'AstroTurf' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/highschool/bal-vafront1003,0,1917958.story?track=rss

• You added this in October 2007.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fbdave. I'm dropping you a note because you've been using the Page Curation suite recently - this is just to let you know that we've deployed the final version :). There's some help documentation Wikipedia:Page Curation/Introductionhere that shows off all the features, just in case there are things you're not familiar with. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether if Stu Klitenic should be deleted or not. The conversation will be held at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stu Klitenic until a consensus is held and everyone is welcome to join the conversation. However, do not remove the AfD message on the top of the page. Ashbeckjonathan 03:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Washington Nationals team records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlos Perez. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kikichugirl was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of films and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Fbdave/Eye Opener (US television) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— kikichugirl ^speak up! 09:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Fbdave, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — kikichugirl speak up! 09:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal to rename Category:2015 in Asian football leagues in conjunction with other Asian and African football season categories. Hugo999 (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I began an important issue that will affect the college football, basketball, and baseball projects. You are a regular editor within any or all of these WikiProjects and your input is requested. Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#University of Texas Rio Grande Valley athletics. Thank you! Jrcla2 (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fbdave. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Eye Opener (US television)".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you.

The instructions at WP:Requested moves states that you place the move discussion at the bottom of the talk page, not at the top. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Major League Baseball players from Jamaica has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only four players on the list. Not necessary.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. JDDJS (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After adding a minimum of content and a reliable source, I restored the 1961 to 1970 Pittsburgh football team articles. It looks like the prior no-content versions were the work of a new editor who appears to have been acting in good faith to fill gaps in the coverage, but without sufficient knowledge of our content rules. Let me know if you still have any concerns with this. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Asher196,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Nazi Party (disambiguation) for deletion, because it doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic content.

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

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Fbdave (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you made a mistake. I'm not sure what page you are actually referring to.--Asher196 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone vandalized the page before I got there. I reverted the vandalism. Fbdave (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Summit League women's basketball coach navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Corkythehornetfan 05:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hii, you Add the Refimprove tag to the page. the data in the page is taken from the official website of the International Judo Association, as indicated at the bottom of the page. Therefore I would like to understand why you think the data is not from a sufficient reliable sources. If you believe this is in fact a sufficient reliable sources, can I remove the tag? Nimrodbr (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the source. However, some people feel that a topic is not notable if there is only one source. Fbdave (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ESPN Major League Baseball, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunday Night Football. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on my recently created articles (KNVB Cup & Hoofdklasse 2016-17) regarding the references, could you please review the added references? Njeroe (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fbdave. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fbdave,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 808 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

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. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Fbdave,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

You marked the 1952 article as disputed. I've created 46 articles for Fresno State football seasons. What issue do you have with the 1952 version? I'm wondering if it's them not being a member of the CCAA that year (and 1951)? I think that's strange, but cfbwarehouse and the Fresno State Bulldogs football page in Wikipedia both say they weren't members in 1951 & 1952. And, the only way I can get the SDSU Aztecs record in 1952 (and 1951) to match what's in the SDSU football media guide is to eliminate Fresno State from the conference. Almost all of the rest of the data is directly from the Fresno State football media guide. Ocfootballknut (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The scores listed are confusing. Can you double check them? Fbdave (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. I had the 1953 scores in the table. It's corrected. THANKS !! Ocfootballknut (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to delete the page, as It will be made again at some point later in the year. Also, Wikipedia usually does Separate pages for team histories in different cities (i.e. History of the Baltimore Colts and History of the Indianapolis Colts)--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Iazyges. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Tikka T3, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fbdave,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 808 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election[edit]

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fbdave,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 808 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fbdave,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 808 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Chrissymad. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kyle Gary Smith, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fbdave, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fbdave, (I'm sorry if this page disturbs your talk page, it wasn't clear how to send you a message) the article I am currently writing is encyclopedia worthy. I started writing it yesterday, (7/16/2017) and need to work on it more. (The article under inspection is the Hawaiian Chocolate Factory) Please allow me to finish it and tell me if you would like me to edit or if it flat out isn't worthy. Thank you.

I would also like to note that the article, Kona Brewing Company is similar to what I would like to write, accept my article would not be written as an advertisement. I am not trying to advertise for this corporation, I would like an article about them because they are unique and encyclopedia worthy.

RavePyroKitty (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC) RavePyroKitty[reply]

Hello Fbdave, I noticed that you nominated for my article to be deleted a mere 33 minutes after it was created, while I was still working on it (and I did put an in use tag on it). Besides that, the reason for why you are nominating it, I believe, is that it is merely a glossary. Glossaries are in fact a thing on Wikipedia, for example Glossary of Christianity (you can find a list of glossaries at WP:WPGLOSSARY). Also, lists of words exist on Wikipedia, for example List of words having different meanings in American and British English: A–L, which provides a list of words and the related definitions — much like my article. I think my article is a good addition to Wikipedia, it provides a handy and interesting source of information. And it is not unlike other articles on Wikipedia, so I don't see why it should be deleted? Thanks for you time and work on Wikipedia. NikolaiHo^☎️ 23:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I speedily kept the article because it was under construction, it is customary to not nominate articles for deletion while they're under construction, nor should they be nominated so soon after creation. Jdcomix (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Association of the Royal Residences of Europe, Fbdave.

Unfortunately TonyBallioni has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

I undid this for CSD because the association with Versailles seems to be a credible claim of significance.

To reply, leave a comment on TonyBallioni's talk page.

TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use the {{Stub}} tag if you can find a more specific stub tag; stub sort when you can. To do otherwise will backlog Category:Stubs. Thank you. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fbdave, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The new page Hayk Kasparov is normally i think. Plz don`t delete it. I will be translate more. Plz wait for my refreshing, ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NelliGK (talk • contribs) 03:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fbdave, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Hello Fbdave, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please cancel the entry Utente:Mario1952/common.js on the English wiki. This is an error. thank you.--Mario1952 (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For being one of the top 100 reviewers of the past year. Thank you for your service! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fbdave. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fbdave, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Hello Fbdave, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, I'm Arthistorian1977. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, West Gate of Summer Palace Station, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthistorian1977: I reviewed several articles related to the Beijing Subway. You may want to check them, too. Fbdave (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fbdave, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)