text:
Wikipedia:New pages patrol

New pages patrol (NPP) is a group of Wikipedians that check whether new articles, redirects and other pages conform to Wikipedia's core content policies. The purpose of new pages patrol is equally to identify pages which cannot meet this standard, and so should be deleted, and to support the improvement of those that can. Pages that pass new pages patrol don't have to be perfect, just not entirely unsuitable for inclusion.

All new articles and redirects are patrolled, unless the user that created them had the autopatrolled permission. NPP's first priority is to identify pages with serious content problems—including attack pages, copyright violations, and vandalism—and mark them for speedy deletion. Beyond that, patrollers consider whether articles are suitable for inclusion in their current state according to the relevant policies and guidelines. Articles considered unsuitable are nominated for deletion or, in certain circumstances, moved to the draft namespace for improvement. Articles considered suitable for inclusion are marked as 'reviewed', with a notification sent to the user that created it. Additionally, reviewers may flag issues with reviewed pages with maintenance tags, perform basic copyediting, and/or sort the article into relevant categories and WikiProjects. New pages are not indexed by external search engines until they are patrolled.

New page patrol is carried out by users with the new page reviewer permission and by administrators. New page reviewers are expected to have a good knowledge of Wikipedia's content policies and prior experience with its processes for handling articles. They primarily use the new pages feed and page curation tool for patrolling. There are currently Special:ListUsers/patroller users with the new page reviewer permission and a total of 0 new page patrollers (including administrators). Aside from the technical ability to mark pages as reviewed, new page patrollers do not have any special decision-making powers over new articles. They are expected to work carefully and assume good faith, paying particular attention to treating newcomers with kindness and patience. Disputes over new page patrolling should be resolved using the usual processes.

The remainder of this page consists of guidelines and resources for new page patrollers. As such, it assumes a good existing knowledge of relevant policies, guidelines and processes. The navigation tabs above contain links to further resources. Discussions related to new page patrolling take place primarily at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers.

Tools
The most important tool is the page curation toolbar, which appears on all pages in the new pages feed. It contains the actual button to mark a page as reviewed. It also contains an information summary about the page and its creator, tools for tagging articles with maintenance tags, and a tool to send barnstars and other nice things to editors that have worked on the article. A copyright violation detector can be added to the toolbar with this user script. There are many other useful tools available to make doing NPP easier. You can find many of them on the resources page or linked throughout this page.

Special:NewPagesFeed
Special:NewPagesFeed is the central motor for reviewing new pages and drafts. It logs new pages immediately after the first version is saved. While it is a good idea to reduce the backlog of unreviewed pages by working from the back of the list, it is nevertheless important that serious breaches of policy such as spam and attack pages be deleted very quickly. A comprehensive preferences panel lets you select what kind of new pages you want to review. The system remembers your preferences each time you open the feed. A list daily created by a bot at sorted list classifies all unreviewed articles by topic, along with a short excerpt of the article. Use this list if you prefer to work on articles in your own sphere of knowledge. A system called ORES inserts alerts of possible problems with the article. Other information will easily help you identify if the article creator is a beginner.

This useful script conveniently adds a "Page Curation" link to your top toolbar that loads the NewPagesFeed.

It is often helpful to review the oldest pages in the NPP queue, rather than the newest, as these may have even been indexed by search engines. When reviewing from the back of the queue, you may come across pages that were created long ago but that recently were changed from being a redirect to an article (or vice versa). These articles pose a distinct challenge, as they are often the result of edit wars, other forms of tendentious editing, or paid editing and spam. You can find a guide to additional concerns and suggestions related to these types of pages here.

Reviewing articles

Reviewing articles is the primary purpose of new pages patrol and should be prioritized over other namespaces. Although new articles appear in the new pages feed immediately, take care not to alienate article creators (especially new editors) by patrolling them while they are still in progress. Unless there are serious content problems, wait at least an hour before nominating an article for deletion, blank-and-redirecting it, or moving it to draftspace.

If the page is not a candidate for a deletion process, but has other issues, there is rarely any need to rush. Inform the creator of any problems using maintenance tags, the article talk page, or the message feature of the curation tool and give them time to address them (perhaps several days) before taking further action. If improvements are not forthcoming, it may be appropriate to move the article to draftspace, to give the creator more space to work on it. However, it is important to remember that 'draftifying' is not a substitute to the deletion process, nor a catch-all solution for articles you don't know what to do with.

Basic steps
Briefly, to review an article:

 * 1) Check if the page curation tool has flagged any potential issues
 * 2) Check the page history for potential issues
 * 3) Read the article
 * 4) Review (or at least spot check) the listed sources, where accessible
 * 5) Decide whether to mark the article as reviewed, nominate it for deletion, or do something else

The rest of this section summarises the range of issues that you might encounter in reviewing an article, in rough order of priority, and how to respond to them. Step 5 is optional – if you don't know what you do with an article, you can always leave it to another reviewer.

Serious content problems
There are three types of serious content problems that new page reviewers should immediately respond to: attack pages, copyright violations, and vandalism. You do not have to wait the usual hour before acting to remove these kind of problems. When you tag something for speedy deletion, do not mark it as reviewed.

 * Attack pages (WP:CSD)
 * An article that is unsourced or poorly sourced and primarily to disparage or threaten its subject should be removed immediately. If the page is new (i.e. there is no policy-compliant earlier version to revert to), blank its contents and nominate it for speedy deletion with db-attack. If the page contains non-public personal information or potentially libelous information, contact an oversighter to remove it. Warn the creator by placing Uw-attack on their talk page (if you feel comfortable doing so) or ask an administrator to follow up.

 * Copyright violations (WP:CSD)
 * All new pages should be checked for copyright violations (copyvios). The curation tool flags potential copyvios detected by the CopyPatrol tool. Other signs that an article is probably copied include unwikified text, large amounts of finished text added in one go, unencyclopedic tone (use of the first person, informality, marketing speak, etc.), and out-of-context phrases that refer to the structure of the source document ("in this book", "go to top", etc.). To check for a copyright violation, use Earwig's Copyvio Detector, or copy and paste sections of text into a search engine, and/or manually inspect references (especially PDFs) as the situation allows. Be aware that automated tools can be prone to false positives: proper nouns, text in quotation marks, lists of data such as a list of an author's books, or matches to a website that copied from Wikipedia are not copyright problems. If the article may be a translation from another language edition of Wikipedia, be sure to check the original language in Earwig. A translation of copyvio is also copyvio and needs to be deleted.
 * If all or most of the article is a copyright violation (such as a copy paste of a copyrighted website), tag it for CSD G12. If only part of the article is a copyright violation, remove the offending text, warn the editor using a template such as Uw-copyright-new, then tag the article for revision deletion (RD1) (User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js helps with this). See Text copyright violations 101 for further instructions.

 * Blatant vandalism (WP:CSD, WP:CSD, WP:CSD)
 * Blatant and obvious misinformation, hoaxes (WP:CSD), nonsense, gibberish (WP:CSD), and test pages (WP:CSD) can all be tagged for speedy deletion immediately.

Other speedy deletion criteria
The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify when an article can be immediately deleted without discussion. It is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving one. New page reviewers should be familiar with all the speedy deletion criteria, but the most commonly encountered are:

 * G4: recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion
 * The Page Curation tool will highlight pages that were previously deleted. You can also check the history.
 * G4 only applies to sufficiently identical copies; this is hard to assess without access to the former page, but if in doubt nominate and the patrolling admin will compare the current version to the deleted history.
 * G4 only applies to pages deleted as the result of a discussion – not speedy deletions or PRODs.
 * G11: unambiguous advertising or promotion
 * A1: no context
 * A3: no content
 * A7, A9, and A11: no indication of importance (only applies to specific topics)
 * Any credible claim of significance disqualifies an article from deletion under these criteria. This is a lower standard than notability.
 * A7 explicitly excludes schools and other educational institutions

You can nominate an article for speedy deletion with the db series of templates; there is a specific tag for each criterion. A patrolling administrator will then either delete the page or decline the nomination by removing the tag. Any editor other than the creator of the article may also remove the tag, which should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and that another deletion process should be used. If the article creator removes the tag, you can restore it and use to warn them on their talk page. Do not mark pages as reviewed after you tag them for speedy deletion. If the nomination is declined, or the creator removes the tag, it will need to be reviewed again.

Always consider alternatives to deletion before nominating an article for speedy deletion. Check the history for a better version; a page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible. Consider whether it could be stubbed, merged, or redirected instead. Speedy deletion must be completely uncontroversial and used in only the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a deletion discussion in the past, it usually cannot be speedily deleted.

Notability
Unless an article falls under what Wikipedia is not or the speedy deletion criteria, notability is the main test for determining whether or not it can exist. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are complex, frequently subjective, and change often. New page patrollers should be familiar with the core notability guideline (especially the general notability guideline, GNGs) and at least some of the more important subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs). However, few if any editors can claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of every notability guideline, so it is important to tread carefully and be aware of what you don't know.

Opinions are divided on how important it is to consider notability during new page patrol. On the one hand, NPP's core purpose is to screen articles that are not suitable for inclusion, and notability is the key test of this in all but the most clear-cut examples of unwanted content. Many patrollers consider notability their "bread and butter" on this basis. On the other hand, assessing notability can be very time-consuming, requiring a proactive search for and evaluation of sourcing, subject-specific knowledge, and ultimately is only decided one way or another via a consensus at AfD. Some have therefore argued that focusing too much on notability causes significant backlogs and that patrollers' time would be better spent on more readily apparent types of unsuitable content.

At a minimum, as a new page patroller, you should be able to identify topics that patently lack notability and nominate them for deletion. You may also opt to investigate the notability of topics in more depth, but bear in mind that a full WP:BEFORE-style search is only really necessary for AfD nominations. Assessment of articles in topic areas with highly-detailed SNGs is best left to reviewers familiar with those areas and guidelines. The notability maintenance tag (and its more specialised subtemplates) can be used to mark articles on topics of uncertain notability for further review in the future.

Alternatives to deletion
You must consider the alternatives before nominating any article for deletion. First and foremost, if you can fix the issues yourself, do so, or use maintenance tags to bring the article to attention of someone who can. Otherwise, there are alternatives to wholesale deletion that retain some or all of the article's content:

 * Draftification
 * A good option for articles that are clearly not ready for mainspace, but could be given further time for improvement, such as: an article with no sources, an obvious machine translation, very poor English, and obvious conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing. Please review the official draftification criteria at Drafts. You can use the script User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft to perform draftifications. Articles older than 90 days should not be draftified. An article should never be draftified more than once, and should never be draftified over objections. Draftspace is optional. If needed, send to AFD instead.

 * Merging
 * If an existing article or list covers or partially covers the topic, consider merging the content there. Remember to properly attribute the content and mark the redirect as reviewed afterwards.

 * Blanking and redirecting (BLAR)
 * An alternative to merging if there is no content worth retaining. Remember to tag the redirect with R with history and mark it as reviewed.

 * Stubbing
 * If an article's content is inappropriate but the topic is notable, you may choose to delete most of the content, just leaving a lead sentence and anything else you deem to be salvageable. Consider watchlisting the page in case inappropriate content is re-added. When done, mark as reviewed.

All of these actions may be carried out boldly, unless you think it will be controversial or if it is challenged by another editor. In that case, it should be proposed and discussed at AfD.

Deletion nominations
If an article is not suitable for inclusion, does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, and you have rejected alternative to deletion, it should be nominated for deletion. Most commonly, this is because the topic of the article is not notable, or violates WP:NOT. The options are:

 * Articles for Deletion (AFD)
 * The most common. Involves creating a discussion where editors discuss what to do with the article. You should follow WP:BEFORE, which involves checking multiple search engine types for sources, before nominating an article for AFD. At the end of one week, or more if relisted, an admin will summarize and carry out the consensus of the discussion, which could be to delete, redirect, merge, keep, etc. When done, mark as reviewed.

 * Proposed deletion (PROD)
 * Similar to AFD, but there is a one week waiting period, and the page creator or any editor is able to stop the deletion process without a discussion. Many patrollers skip this step and just send everything to AFD. When done, do not mark as reviewed.

 * Proposed deletion for biographies (BLPPROD)
 * Should be used when a biography of a living person has no citations or external links. This tag may not be removed until sources are added, and is meant to encourage the author to add sources. If no reliable sources are added after a week, the article is deleted. When done, do not mark as reviewed.

In each case, it is important to follow the "before" steps of each of this processes, to ensure the article is actually eligible:

 * Steps to take before nominating an article for proposed deletion (PROD)
 * Steps to take before nominating an article for proposed deletion as an unsourced biography of a living person (BLPPROD)
 * Steps to take before nominating an article for deletion (AfD)

Pages in languages other than English
If the article is a cut-and-paste of (all or part of) an article in another language's Wikipedia, which is often the case, it should be tagged with db-foreign (CSD A2). Do not tag articles written in another language with G1 patent nonsense. If an article is a copyright violation, it may be nominated for G12.

For other non-English articles, follow the instructions at Pages needing translation into English/Procedures. Essentially, this consists of reading a machine translation the article (see comparison of machine translation applications). If the translated content of the article does not violate a CSD and is likely to be notable, you can place the notenglish template, e.g.,, to flag it for translation. If the content of the article is not worth keeping due to CSD or notability, you should use the appropriate deletion process.

Article titles
Check that the page title is appropriate and, if not, move it to corrected title. Be aware that there are general naming conventions (such as using sentence case for non-proper nouns, or not adding disambiguation terms in parentheses if they are not needed), and also topic-specific naming conventions.

If you move an article and the former name is an implausible redirect (and you can't suppress the creation of a redirect following the move), you will need to request its deletion using Db-r3. If you cannot perform the move for technical reasons, ask for help at WP:RM. If the move is potentially controversial, follow the instructions at Requested moves.

Duplicated content
Wikipedia's licensing allows editors to copy material from one article to another and to translate material from our sister projects in other language, providing that the original authors of the material are attributed. Copied material is therefore generally not a problem for NPP unless an entire article has been copied to a new title (a 'cut-and-paste move'), the copying has created a content fork, or the proper attribution is not been maintained.

The attribution requirement is usually fulfilled by a statement in the edit summary that links to the original page (e.g. ). If you find an article that contains copied or translated material without attribution, you can add one in a dummy edit. For further information, see Copying within Wikipedia.

Content forks
To aid reader navigation and make efficient use of editor resources, Wikipedia prohibits having multiple articles on the same or an extremely similar topic, which is known as content forking.

If you encounter a broad or popular topic that you are surprised didn't already have a page, there is a high chance that it has been forked. Authors sometimes also link to pages they have forked from the "see also" section.

When you encounter a fork, you have two options. If the new page has content the existing page does not, nominate the pages for merging; otherwise, just convert the new page into a redirect.

Addressing cut-and-paste moves
Finding they cannot change a typo in the title, or being unaware of redirects and wanting a topic found at another title, new users sometimes create new pages with the content of existing articles – 'cut-and-paste moves'. Doing so severs the edit history, required under copyright. In such situations, request deletion using  / . Though these templates have their own warnings, separately warn the user using. In the rare situation that the user has added significant content to the copy they posted that is worth merging, list the page for a history merge (note: not the same as a merge) at WP:SPLICE.

Where an existing page or redirect has been used as the target of a cut-and-paste move the edit should be reversed, restoring the original page content.

Duplicate articles with separate origins
If you come upon an article on a duplicate topic but that has a separate origin (not copied from the existing article, addressed above), this also can be asked to be deleted under CSD A10. However, here, if the article has content that warrants merging, perform a merge (do not ask for a history merge) and redirect to the existing article. Be sure to provide mandatory copyright attribution when you do so. See WP:MERGETEXT.

Optional steps
The following steps are often useful for improving new articles or bringing them to the attention of others who will. However, do not feel obligated to perform them. Wikipedia is a work in progress and your main responsibility as a new page patroller is to identify articles that definitely should not be included, not bring them up to a given standard.

 * Basic copyediting
 * It is common for new page patrollers to also help with basic copyediting, especially of the lead section. This could include ensuring the article title appears in bold text in the lead, adding relevent internal links, removing overlinking, ensuring section headings conform to MOS:TITLECASE and MOS:ORDER, and combining short passages of text into paragraphs.

 * Short description
 * Add the short description template, if the article doesn't already have one. The Shortdesc helper gadget makes this easier.

 * Maintenance tags
 * If needed, add maintenance tags to the article. This can be done via the Page Curation toolbar or via Twinkle. Examples of maintenance tags include Copy edit, Orphan, POV, Advert, tags related to sourcing, COI, UPE, Dablinks, Bare URLs, Underlinked, No footnotes, More footnotes, Over-quotation, Criticism section, and many others. Unsourced articles can be tagged with unsourced, under-sourced articles with more citations needed, and articles with only general references with more footnotes.

 * Orphaned articles
 * The curation tool highlights articles with no incoming links. You might be able to fix an orphaned article by searching for its title in other articles or adding it to relevant lists or set indexes. Otherwise, tag it with orphan and move on.

 * Categorizing
 * Check that the article has been assigned to one or more useful categories, and if not, either tag it with uncat or try to find a category for it. You can check similar articles for potentially relevant categories. The Hotcat gadget can help in adding or changing categories.

 * Stub sorting
 * Stubs are the beginnings of meaningful and encyclopedic articles. You can highlight them with the generic stub tag, but consider choosing a more specific one, like England-school-stub. More information is available at Stub types, but don't spend too much time attempting to find the right tag; there are dedicated stub sorters at WikProject Stub Sorting who can frequently figure out how to sort them quickly. User:Danski454/stubsearch is a script available to easily find stub tags.

 * WikiProject Sorting
 * Ensuring that Talk pages are tagged with relevant WikiProjects is an important way to get additional eyes on new articles and it can help get interested editors involved in expanding stubs and in copy editing and fact checking. You can add WikiProjects either manually or using a script. Evad37's Rater is one current tool, and another, no longer actively developed one, is Kephir's Rater.

Redirects in languages other than English
Redirects from titles in languages other than English are allowed if there is a significant connection between the language in question and the target subject. Examples include non-English titles for creative works originally written in those languages such as Cien años de soledad, or regional names for foods such as kebapcinja. These are allowed even in alphabets other than Latin, such as Москва or 日本. However, names for common objects that have no particular association with any culture despite global use (e.g. Bahnwagen, German for Railroad car) or even use with a sufficiently broad subset of countries (e.g. Bidé, Italian for bidet), are discouraged and generally deleted at RfD.

Reviewing other pages
New page patrollers should focus their patrolling on mainspace articles and mainspace redirects. Patrolling other namespaces is discouraged due to the importance of patrolling mainspace (search engine indexing implications, most likely to contain BLP or copyright violations, etc.) and also the large backlog. Below are some checklists for patrolling other namespaces, kept for historical reasons:

 * New pages patrol/File namespace checklist
 * New pages patrol/Wikipedia namespace checklist
 * New pages patrol/Template namespace checklist

Disambiguation page checklist
Disambiguation pages are located in mainspace so will appear in Special:NewPagesFeed like a regular article. They are usually easier to review than a normal article. Here are some tips specific to disambiguation pages.
 * WikiProjects - tag as normal, but also include WikiProject Disambiguation
 * CLASS = disambiguation
 * IMPORTANCE = N/A, not low
 * Make sure it has disambiguation, hndis, or similar at the bottom. Keep in mind that hndis takes a WP:SORTKEY as one of its parameters.
 * Categories - None. Using the proper template above will take care of the category (usually "Disambiguation pages")
 * For relevant pages, fix any hatnotes, incoming links, etc. that you can think of that might need fixing. Other uses can be a good hatnote to add to articles.
 * If you judge a disambiguation page is inappropriate, it is technically in mainspace and is not a redirect, so will need to go to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, or be blanked and redirected.

Drafts
The draft namespace is managed by the the Articles for Creation project. New drafts are not reviewed by NPP. However, unless the user that moves them is autopatrolled, drafts moved to the article namespace enter the new pages feed and should be reviewed as normal. New page patrollers are automatically placed on the allow list for the Articles for Creation Helper Script gadget, in case they are ever interested in helping out at AFC. The AFC reviewing skillset is very similar to new page patrolling, but be sure to read AFC's tutorials to familiarize yourself with the differences.

Dealing with conduct issues
The purpose of new pages patrol is to review the content of new pages, not the conduct of the editors who created them. Nevertheless, new page patrollers are well-placed to identify conduct issues such as sockpuppetry, promotion, serial copyright violations, undisclosed paid editing and other conflicts of interest, and child protection issues. It is always worth checking the history of pages for evidence of these issues.

Conflicts of interest and paid editing
New page patrollers are in a good position to spot conflict of interest (COI) editing, which includes people writing about themselves, their family, friends, clients, employers, or anything else they have a financial and or other close relationship with. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged, but permitted within certain conditions, namely that a) the COI is disclosed and b) that editors with a COI avoid directly editing the article in question. For new articles, the latter requirement means that they should be created via the Articles for Creation process and accepted by a reviewer there. Editing with a financial conflict of interest ('paid editing') is even more tightly regulated, with disclosure mandated by the Wikimedia Terms of Use and AfC mandated by local policy.

Some indicators of COI editing include:

 * Articles that 'look too good to be true' – well-written, perfectly formatted articles with lots of neat references submitted by users with low edit counts
 * Multiple references to company, B2B, or financial listings, staff lists, interviews
 * Articles with inline external links
 * Articles whose style of text appears to come from a news article, press release, blog, or a book
 * Articles whose style of referencing includes many references to the subject's own publications
 * Article posted in one or a very few edits, denoting meticulous offline preparation.
 * Author has posted several single edit new articles that are related
 * Author has a corporate sounding username or a name that is otherwise reminiscent of the subject
 * Text written in first or second person (I, we, my, our, you, your)
 * Biographies with photos that look like professional headshots, especially when attributed to the same editor that wrote the article as "own work"
 * WP:REFBOMBed articles with an absurd amount of references that are trivial and redundant

If you suspect conflict of interest editing in a new article, the first thing to do is to check whether the creator has properly disclosed a COI (check both their user page, the article history, and the article talk page) and whether the article was accepted by an AfC reviewer. Then:

 * 1) If the creator has properly disclosed their COI and the article was created via AfC:
 * 2) * Proceed to review the article as normal
 * 3) * If there are issues, tag the article with COI or paid as appropriate
 * 4) * Add connected contributor or connected contributor (paid) to the article's talk page as appropriate
 * 5) If the creator has properly disclosed their COI but the article was not created via AfC:
 * 6) * Move the article to draftspace and inform the creator that they must (financial COI) or should (non-financial COI) use AfC
 * 7) * Tag the draft with COI or paid as appropriate
 * 8) * Add connected contributor or connected contributor (paid) to the article's talk page as appropriate
 * 9) If the creator has disclosed their COI, but not in sufficient detail:
 * 10) * Use uw-coi to inform them of the requirements
 * 11) * Proceed with #1 or #2 as appropriate
 * 12) If the creator has not disclosed a COI but you do not suspect a financial incentive:
 * 13) * Use uw-coi to inform them of the requirements
 * 14) * Proceed with #1 or #2 as appropriate
 * 15) If the creator has not disclosed a COI and you suspect a financial incentive:
 * 16) * Use uw-paid to inform them of the requirements
 * 17) * Tag the article with UPE
 * 18) * Proceed with #1 or #2 as appropriate
 * 19) If the creator has not disclosed a COI and you have evidence of a financial incentive:
 * 20) * Move the article to draftspace
 * 21) * Tag the article with UPE
 * 22) * Send your evidence to, where a functionary will review it and take appropriate further action

When reviewing any article where you suspect a conflict of interest, be especially on the lookout for advertising masquerading as articles, promotional content, notability of commercial entities, overuse of primary or unreliable sources, and related problems. If you are not sure if there is a conflict of interest, or need help investigating one, ask at the COI Noticeboard. At all times, remember to assume good faith and avoid casting aspersions: an editor with an undisclosed conflict of interest may simply not be aware of our requirements.

User names and vandalism
In serious cases, the creator of a new page may need to be blocked to prevent further disruption or damage to Wikipedia's reputation. Familiarise yourself with the WP:UAA and WP:AIV systems and their policies and report such cases as necessary.

Hasty patrolling
Other editors, particularly those who are interested in fighting vandalism, also regularly check newly created articles to tag them for maintenance or deletion. Although they don't have access to the features of the Page Curation Toolbar, all editors, even IP users, can tag pages. Tagged pages remain listed in the feed until patrolled by a reviewer, enabling New Page Reviewers to identify and isolate poor patrolling. Use the 'Unreview' feature for good faith errors and see the templates that can be used to encourage users to do less demanding maintenance tasks until they have more experience. If you find inappropriate new page patrolling, you can use the template Stop NPP as a supportive ask. In persistent cases however, it will be necessary to escalate through the warning levels and might need administrator attention at a place like ANI or by getting help on the NPP discussion page.

Patroller conduct
Throughout the entire process of new pages patrol, it is important to remember not to bite the newbies. Far from being a monolithic horde of vandals, trolls, and spammers, the available evidence seems to indicate that newcomers write most of Wikipedia's content. If you see a new user or IP address contributing significantly, post a welcome template to their talk page, such as or  or, for IPs specifically,  or, and include a pointer or two of feedback about how they can make their contributions even better. Most will gladly welcome the support.

It is also important to assume good faith as much as possible, or, minimally, to assume incompetence instead of malice. For example, remember not everyone is as computer-literate as you; some people will accidentally blank or damage pages when attempting to cut and paste material from Wikipedia. Others may not understand that, yes, their changes really are visible to the entire world immediately; consider using to suggest that new users work on their article as a userspace draft.

Please do not be too hasty with speedy deletions for "non-egregious" (other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, or complete nonsense), especially those lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3). Writers unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines should be accorded at least an hour to fix the article before it is nominated for speedy deletion. If you see a page that has been tagged too hastily, please notify the tagger about their hasty deletion with. The template placed above existing speedy tag to inform admins to of hasty tagging and to wait can also be added to the tagged article to flag that it was hastily tagged.

If you tag an article written by a newcomer, consider leaving a friendly note on their talk page, pointing them to Help:Maintenance template removal (WP:MTR), which is dedicated to explaining the process of addressing and removing maintenance tags and including that anyone can remove them (except for AFD and CSD tags) after the problems have been addressed (or if they were truly added in error). Most new editors don't know that they are permitted to do this.

Communication
Excellent communication is an important part of the new page patrol process. Reviewers should make use of Page Curation to post short messages to the creator, provide informative edit summaries, and otherwise appropriately engage with other editors. Reviewers are encouraged to make frequent use of the existing message to creator tool. It is essential that good faith new creators be encouraged to continue creating articles and editing Wikipedia.

Reviewers are not obligated to mentor new users or complete their articles, but may wish to direct new users to the Teahouse question forum, help desk and Articles for Creation for assistance. Your first article, Contributing to Wikipedia, the Tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure, and other help pages are also available. When drafts are approved at AfC and moved to the mainspace they will be checked again by new page patrollers in many instances.

Disputes and consensus
As a new page patroller, any action you take other than marking an article as reviewed is not likely to be welcomed by the page creator. In the best case scenario, they will simply listen to your feedback and address the issue promptly. However, disputes are common. Whether it is about a cleanup tag, a deletion nomination, a move to draft, or something else, try to approach these disputes with humility and empathy. Avoid the temptation to 'pull rank' over a user who probably knows a lot less about our processes than you do. Even if you are completely correct in your judgement of an article, it is not surprising that the creator could react badly if you tell them that there is something wrong with their contribution, or threaten to remove it. New editors might be unfamiliar with our practice of not asking permission to fix problems – and its obverse, not being offended when someone points out a problem with your work. Experienced editors might be reluctant to acknowledge that they aren't immune to making mistakes. All reviewing disputes are more likely to be resolved amicably if you try to understand the other party's point of view before putting forth your own.

It is especially important to remember that the right gives you the technical ability to mark pages "reviewed"; it does not give you any special decision-making powers over new articles. Like all advanced rights holders, from page movers to bureaucrats, the way you use your tools is subject to the consensus of other editors. For example, if you move a page to draftspace and the creator of the article objects to this, there is no consensus on where the page should be. The recommended course of action here is to return the page to the state it was in before the dispute began (i.e., in mainspace), and then attempt to solve it through discussion, for example, by opening an AfD. You should not simply insist that the page remains in your preferred namespace because you are a new page patroller and the other editor is not.

Unreviewing
Page Curation also includes a feature to 'unreview' a new article. Nobody is absolutely perfect and errors can happen. If you come across an article that appears to have been wrongly or inappropriately tagged, consider clicking the checkmark icon in the Page Curation toolbar ("Mark this page as unreviewed") and leave a friendly note for the patroller.

If you notice a patroller making frequent errors, tagging too quickly, or tag-bombing, offer friendly support or direct them to a specific section of this or another help page. In extreme cases you may need to inform an administrator, an NPP coordinator, or post at WP:ANI, but always try to help your colleague first.

Redirects converted to articles
If a redirect or blanked page is converted to an article, it will be marked as unreviewed and placed in the new pages feed. This is to avoid people creating redirects for inappropriate pages and later converting them into articles to avoid review. If you see an old page (such as one from 2005 or 2016), it is likely that it was recently converted from a redirect. In these cases, you should check the page history, and if the page is not appropriate as an article, restore the redirect and notify the person who created the article. If you are reverted and you still believe the article is inappropriate, you should list it at Articles for Deletion. Redirects that are currently listed at Redirects for Discussion should simply be marked as reviewed.

Technical details

 * Namespace subject to review – Mainspace is the only namespace where the page curation toolbar displays. NPPs do not need to patrol other namespaces, and are encouraged to focus on mainspace.
 * Users subject to review – Most editors will have their mainspace page creations show up in the new pages feed as unreviewed until marked as reviewed by an NPP. Editors with the autopatrolled permission and global rollbacker permission are an exception: their pages do not show up in the new pages feed, and their pages are marked as reviewed when created. Admins are no longer autopatrolled by default, but can self-assign the permission if desired.
 * Who can review which articles – New page patrollers are prevented by the software from reviewing or unreviewing their own articles, unless they are autopatrolled.
 * Autopatrol and page moves – For users with the autopatrolled permission, a page move will autopatrol an article if it is a move from outside of mainspace into mainspace. So an autopatrolled user should be careful, for example, when accepting AFC drafts, as these will be autopatrolled. However, the software lets them unpatrol it if needed.
 * Search engine indexing
 * Articles – Unreviewed articles are prevented from being indexed by search engines for 90 days. After 90 days, the article remains in the queue to remind us to eventually review it, but search engines can begin indexing it.
 * Articles sent to AFD – Sending an article to AFD and marking it as reviewed will not allow search engine indexing (unless the article is older than 90 days), because there is a NOINDEX template used in the AFD template placed at the top of the article.
 * Redirects – Redirects are automatically marked as reviewed after 6 months. As soon as they are marked as reviewed, they become indexable.
 * Patrol versus review – There is a difference between an article being marked as patrolled (which is the basic patrol system built into MediaWiki Core and uses the patrol log) and marked as reviewed (which is the advanced system used by the MediaWiki extension PageTriage and uses the page curation log). Clicking, which appears in the bottom right corner of some pages, makes an entry in the patrol log only. Clicking the green check mark in your toolbar always creates an entry in the page curation log, and often creates an entry in the patrol log, but not always due to some bugs. Most people use the "mark as reviewed" button, so most people should be checking the page curation log exclusively. You can apply the "Reviewing" log filter if needed, which will filter out non-reviewing from the page curation log. The patrol log should usually be ignored.   appears when the Page Curation toolbar is closed (see next bullet), and in namespaces where PageTriage doesn't operate (for example, draftspace, template space, and talk pages). We do not need to patrol non-mainspace pages methodically and should focus on mainspace.
 * Closing and re-opening the toolbar – If you close the Page Curation toolbar completely, by first minimizing the toolbar using the top toolbar button, then clicking the top X icon on the mini-toolbar, it will disappear completely. In this situation, to get the toolbar back, you need to click "Open Page Curation" in the left menu, in the "Tools" section.
 * How to calculate your # of articles reviewed – The "patrol" stat in xtools will give you an approximate count (probably an undercount). This Quarry query, added together with the count of your CSDs in your Twinkle CSD log, will give you an almost accurate count.

Administrators
Editors with the administrator user right can review new articles without any additional permissions. There are a number of tasks where admin assistance is particularly helpful:

 * Reviewing requests for the new page reviewer permission – see guidelines for granting
 * Reviewing requests for the autopatrolled permission – see guidelines for granting
 * lists users by number of outstanding unreviewed articles
 * Database reports/Editors eligible for Autopatrol privilege – note that many of these users have previously had the right revoked or withheld
 * Filter the new pages feed by "were previously deleted" and check for WP:CSD candidates
 * Filter the new pages feed by "blocked users" and check for WP:CSD candidates
 * Filter the new pages feed by "nominated for deletion" (and uncheck "all others") to process CSD and PROD nominations – articles at AfD should be checked for copyright violations, then marked as reviewed
 * Nominations for deletion under CSD R2 are often left behind by articles moved to draftspace – ensure that the move was consistent with WP:ATD-I and WP:DRAFTIFY before deletion
 *  – likely cut and paste moves from draftspace (see WP:DRAFTOBJECT) that need to be history merged for attribution (unless no other user edited the draft)

Various project coordination tasks also benefit from the input of experienced editors.

History
Editors regularly monitored Special:NewPages from the earliest days of the project, before there was an organised new pages patrol. Uncle G's guide to article triage illustrates the workflow used for these ad hoc patrols. Two major constraints in these early days were that new pages only remained in the log for thirty days and that there was no function to mark a page as reviewed. It was thus difficult for people looking at the log to know if a page had already been patrolled by someone else. The first attempt to organise a new pages patrol (2004) tried to address this by working in shifts, so that someone would always be checking new pages as they were created, but it didn't work. New pages patrol was subsequently folded into recent changes patrol for the next couple of years.

The new pages patrol project as we know it was split off from recent changes patrol in December 2006. The ability to mark new pages as reviewed was added to MediaWiki in November 2007. Originally restricted to admins, it was made available to all autoconfirmed users shortly thereafter. This brought with it a problem that has remained present ever since: the backlog. The thirty-day limit on pages appearing in the Special:NewPages remained, and articles would regular move off it without being marked as reviewed. By 2010–2011, there was a sense that new page patrollers could not cope with the workload, even though the actual number of pages needing to be manually patrolled had been decreasing steadily since 2007. A bot was created to tag these articles as "unpatrolled", but a more permanent solution was needed.

Motivated in large part by the pressure on new pages patrol, a major RfC in 2011 proposed that page creation should be restricted to autoconfirmed users. It had previously been restricted to registered users in 2005, in an "experiment" initiated by Jimmy Wales following the Seigenthaler incident. The RfC found a strong consensus for extending this requirement to autoconfirmed, but as a concession to those who were worried that this was too big of a compromise of the principle that anyone can edit, it was agreed it would first be put in place for a six-month trial (WP:ACTRIAL). However, controversially, MediaWiki developers refused to implement the change because it would "significantly and negatively impact the Foundation's goals of editor engagement", leaving ACTRIAL in limbo for the next six years.

In the aftermath of the ACTRIAL controversy, the WMF initiated a project to improve the workflow of new page patrollers. A survey of patrollers was conducted, which amongst other things indicated a desire for better tools for navigating and patrolling new articles. The result of this project was a new Mediawiki extension, PageTriage (originally called 'Zoom'), which was enabled on the English Wikipedia in 2012. It added Special:NewPagesFeed (intended to replace Special:NewPages) and the Page Curation tools. Further work in 2018 added AfC drafts, ORES predictions and automated copyright violation checking to the feed.

The user right, New Page Reviewer, was introduced in 2016 to ensure quality of reviewing. The system is the front line of interaction between new authors and the community's volunteers who maintain the quality of Wikipedia's articles.

Guides to patrolling

 * Quick guide to reviewing new articles
 * New page patrol source guide – a list of sources whose reliability has been previously discussed by the Wikipedia community, organized by region and/or topic
 * Patrolling the oldest articles in the queue
 * User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage (predates new page patrol)
 * User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Differences between AFC and NPP reviewing
 * User:North8000/New pages patrol/Practical tips
 * User:Joe Roe/Seven tips for new page patrolling

Guides to speedy deletion

 * Field guide to proper speedy deletion
 * Why I Hate Speedy Deleters
 * Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion
 * Common A7 mistakes

title: Wikipedia:New pages patrol


text:
Talk:Culture of Saudi Arabia

Culture of saudi arabia
Culture of saudi arabia 2404:1C40:D2:E8A:1:0:C4B:C63D (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: MIT 398 Intercultural International Communication
— Assignment last updated by Hissalmana (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Culture of Saudi Arabia


text:
User talk:KitSolidor

I am not home, please leave a message after the beep...

title: User talk:KitSolidor


text:
Heythrop College, University of London

Heythrop College, University of London, was a constituent college of the University of London between 1971 and 2018, last located in Kensington Square, London. It comprised the university's specialist faculties of philosophy and theology with social sciences, offering undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses and five specialist institutes and centres to promote research.

The college had a close affiliation with the Catholic Church, through the British Province of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) whose scholarly tradition went back to a 1614 exiled foundation in Leuven, Belgium, and whose extensive library collections it housed. While maintaining its denominational links and ethos the college welcomed all faiths and perspectives, women as well as men.

Through Heythrop's close links with the Jesuits, it also served as the London centre for Fordham University, a Jesuit university in the United States. Other external groups, including A Call To Action (ACTA, British Catholic Association), also used meeting facilities on the site.

Following unsuccessful negotiations with St Mary's University, Twickenham, another British university, and amid some controversy, in June 2015 the college's governing body decided that the college would cease to be an independent constituent of the University of London, in 2018. It formally terminated operations and left the University of London on 31 January 2019. It was the first significant UK higher education institution to completely close permanently (not including mergers and name changes) since the dissolution of the original University of Northampton in 1265.

Twentieth-century name
The college acquired its name, Heythrop, from its 46 year sojourn at Heythrop Hall, a Grade II* listed early 18th-century country house in Italian Baroque style, 1 mi southeast of Heythrop village in Oxfordshire. The English province of the Society of Jesus bought the dilapidated house and grounds in 1926 as a training centre for their scholastics. During its stay, the house was altered and enlarged, not always in a style sympathetic to the original architectural concept. In 1926 two wings were added to the north front built of Hornton ironstone from north Oxfordshire, much darker and browner than the stone used to build the original house in the 18th century.

In 1952, the indoor real tennis court was converted into a chapel and in 1965, a library was added. In 1960, two halls of residence were added in the grounds in contemporary style.

In 1970 the Jesuit province moved its facilities to London after it had negotiated for the centre's faculties of theology and philosophy to become part of London University. It sold its Oxfordshire estate to the National Westminster Bank Group which turned the house and its precincts into a training and conference centre.

Beginnings in exile
Due to continuing anti-Catholic persecution during the reign of James I, a network of English religious schools was established in Western Europe. Likewise the Society of Jesus preferred to establish its school for boys and its faculties of theology and philosophy for training English Jesuit candidates abroad. Under John Gerard it founded them in Leuven in 1614, before moving them to a newly constructed college in Liège in 1616, which became the. William Baldwin (1563–1632) was a professor of moral theology at the college in Louvain. He, like Gerard, was implicated in the Gunpowder Plot.

In 1624 the English Jesuit college obtained patronage from Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, and his wife, hence the colours of the elector's coat of arms were incorporated into its own coat of arms. The Liège college was protected in the Austrian Netherlands and continued relatively undisturbed for 178 years, through the suppression of the Society of Jesus in 1773 under the personal authority of Bishop François-Charles de Velbrück, until French troops surrounded the city in 1794. Notable teachers and alumni included:
 * John Carroll (1735–1815), first Roman Catholic bishop (and Archbishop of Baltimore) in the United States and founder of Georgetown University
 * Charles Carroll (1737–1832), Maryland delegate and one of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence
 * Charles Plowden (1743–1821), Jesuit priest, writer and administrator; first rector at Stonyhurst
 * Francis Plowden, Jesuit priest, barrister and writer. Taught at the college during the suppression of the Society of Jesus
 * John Howard SJ was head of Liège College (1773–1783)
 * William Strickland SJ was head of Liège College (1783–1790)
 * Marmaduke Stone SJ (1748–1834), final director of the college (1790–1794), led the evacuation to England

Repatriation to England and Wales
During the French Revolutionary Wars, the continuity of the college is owed principally to two men: Marmaduke Stone SJ, who led the Liège college move to England in 1794 and an Old Boy of Watten and Bruges English College, Thomas Weld (of Lulworth), who generously donated his family seat, of Stonyhurst, a property in Lancashire, where the evacuees settled for the foreseeable future. While the environment in England was relatively benign for Catholics, the Catholic Church had suppressed the Jesuit order during the English province's exile in Europe. They resolved therefore to accept the authority of the only remaining valid Jesuit province which was in the Russian Empire under superiors, Gabriel Gruber and Tadeusz Brzozowski. The latter became Superior General of the Society of Jesus in 1814, although still confined to Russia, when Pope Pius VII lifted the ban on the order. The former Liège college staff located its faculties on two sites, philosophy at Stonyhurst College in Lancashire and theology at St Beuno's College in Denbighshire.

In 1840, Stonyhurst was recognised as an affiliated college of the University of London, which had been created in 1836. This allowed students to sit examinations for University of London degrees. Among the notable teaching staff were:
 * Henry James Coleridge (1822–1893), professor of Scripture, religious preacher and writer
 * Alfred Weld (1823–1890), professor of Science and Astronomy, Director of the Stonyhurst Observatory, grandson of the College founder
 * Sylvester Joseph Hunter (1829–1896), Jesuit priest and educator
 * John Morris (1826–1893) taught canon law in 1867
 * George Tyrrell (1861–1909), an Irish Jesuit, taught philosophy at Stonyhurst (until his expulsion from the Jesuits) and was condemned for Modernism
 * Franz Xavier Wernz (1842–1914), professor of canon law in 1882 at St Beuno's. He served as the 25th Superior General of the Society of Jesus and was rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome

Among its alumni were:
 * James Brodrick (1891–1973), Jesuit priest and historian
 * Richard Clarke (1839–1900), Jesuit priest and theologian. First Master of Campion Hall, Oxford
 * Aloysius Cortie (1859–1925), Jesuit priest and astronomer
 * Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844–1899), Jesuit priest, poet and professor
 * Joseph Rickaby (1845–1932), Jesuit priest and philosopher
 * Martin D'Arcy SJ (1888–1976) was a philosopher of love, and a correspondent, friend, and adviser of a range of literary and artistic figures including Evelyn Waugh, Dorothy L. Sayers, W. H. Auden, Eric Gill and Sir Edwin Lutyens. He has been described as "perhaps England's foremost Catholic public intellectual from the 1930s until his death".

Heythrop years
In 1926, the faculties came together at Heythrop Hall, Oxfordshire. As a Collegium Maximum, the college's right to admit its students to degrees was confirmed by the Holy See in 1932. In 1964, the college was raised to the status of a Pontifical Athenaeum, named as the Heythrop Faculties of Theology and Philosophy, open to lay men and women and clerics from outside the Society of Jesus. However, the college now also sought integration with the British educational system.

Rectors and principals, 1926–1970

 * 1926–1937: Edward Helsham SJ
 * 1937–1944: Ignatius Scoles SJ
 * 1944–1950: Edward Enright SJ
 * 1950–1952: Desmond Boyle SJ
 * 1952–1959: John Diamond SJ
 * 1959–1964: David Hoy SJ
 * 1964–1970: William Maher SJ

Alumni, 1926–1970

 * John A. Saliba, Jesuit priest and professor of religious studies
 * Salvino Azzopardi (1931–2006), Jesuit priest and philosopher
 * Frederick Copleston (1907–1994), Jesuit priest, philosopher and historian
 * Ralph Coverdale (1918–1975), soldier, behavioural psychologist, management consultant and trainer
 * Mark Elvins (1939–2014), Warden of Greyfriars, Oxford
 * Clarence Gallagher, Jesuit priest and theologian. Former Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law and Rector of the Pontifical Oriental Institute (1990–1995).
 * Gerard W. Hughes (1924–2014), Jesuit priest, spiritual guide and author of God of Surprises
 * Paul Lakeland (1946– ), Professor and Chair of the centre for Catholic studies of Fairfield University
 * Peter Levi (1931–2000), former Jesuit priest, poet, archaeologist, travel writer, biographer, critic and Professor of Poetry at the University of Oxford
 * Bernard Lonergan (1904–1984), Jesuit priest, philosopher and theologian
 * Peter Milward (1925–2017), Jesuit priest and literary scholar
 * Joseph A. Munitiz (1931-2022), Jesuit priest, theologian and librarian. Former editor of the Heythrop Journal and master of Campion Hall, Oxford
 * Gerald O'Collins (born 1931), Jesuit priest, author, academic, and educator
 * Stephen Perry (1833–1889), Jesuit priest and astronomer
 * James J. Quinn (1919–2010), Jesuit priest, theologian and hymnwriter
 * Frederick Turner (1911–2001), Jesuit priest, archivist, librarian and former headmaster at Stonyhurst College
 * Edward Yarnold (1926–2002), former Master of Campion Hall, Oxford from 1965 to 1972
 * Romain Paquette (1927–2024), former Jesuit priest, professor of geography at Université de Sherbrooke

Constituent of the University of London
For this purpose it moved to London in 1970, and obtained a royal charter of incorporation as a "school" of the University of London in the faculties of theology and arts on 11 March 1971. It began to award University of London degrees. After its move to London, to a Grade II listed Georgian townhouse, a former convent, at nos. 11–13 Cavendish Square in the Marylebone area, the college retained the name "Heythrop College". In 1993 the college moved to its final location, in the Maria Assumpta Centre at 23 Kensington Square, initially sharing the site with several other organisations, most notably the Westminster Pastoral Foundation (WPF), a reputable and long-established counselling training institute. In 2000 Heythrop College announced it needed more space for its library and delicate negotiations began with WPF. The college had assembled one of the largest philosophy and theology-related libraries in Britain. Eight years later, WPF were finally persuaded to uproot and vacate their extensive purpose-built premises, about a quarter of the Maria Assumpta site.

In January 2014, the college received decrees from the Congregation for Catholic Education of the Holy See officially reactivating its ecclesiastical faculties under the patronage of saint Robert Bellarmine. These ecclesiastical faculties were grouped together as the Bellarmine Institute. In June 2014, Heythrop College celebrated the 400th anniversary of its two original faculties. While the college still retained the English Jesuits' original function of training future priests of the Catholic Church, its contemporary teaching staff and student body had become much wider, more international and diverse.

The college ran into financial difficulties in the 2010s due to the changes in higher education in the United Kingdom. Undergraduate student recruitment declined after the cap on tuition fees was raised to £9,000 per annum in 2012, resulting in the Society of Jesus subsidising the college with millions of pounds: Claire Ozanne, the college's final principal, also highlighted the impact of the administrative burden of quality assurance assessments such as the Teaching and Research Excellence Frameworks on small institutions like Heythrop. Despite explorations with other academies, strategic partnership talks with St Mary's University, Twickenham, and an offer from the University of Roehampton for Heythrop to affiliate as one of its constituent colleges, no solution was found and in 2015 the decision was made to wind down and close by 2019.

Maria Assumpta campus
The site was previously entirely owned by the Religious of the Assumption, a religious order of sisters founded in France by Saint Marie-Eugénie de Jésus. The Sisters originally ran a convent school and later a teacher training college on the mainly residential Victorian site, known for decades as The Maria Assumpta Centre. A number of the sisters continue to live on the site, and their Marie Eugénie Chapel was available for student use. A chaplaincy was provided for all College students, in addition to the University of London chaplaincy, along with an Islamic Prayer room.

Unlike many University of London colleges, Heythrop College managed in 2008, on the termination of their lease and the vacation of its premises by WPF, to take over the majority of facilities on the Maria Assumpta Kensington site. All lecture rooms, the students' union, the dining hall, previously shared with WPF and other tenant organisations, in the Victorian buildings in Kensington Square, came under its exclusive management. The College also took over the Alban Hall of residence, previously operated by the Sisters for women students only, which became briefly the College's sole residential accommodation for a proportion of its selected student body.

Library
The college library comprising some 180,000 volumes, made it one of the largest theology and philosophy libraries in the United Kingdom. Some of its collections date back to the founding of the faculties in 1614. Between 2008 and 2018, the collections were housed in two buildings: the theology, social sciences and literature collections were held in the "Copleston Wing" of the college, formerly the main part of the WPF Training Centre, while philosophy collections were held in the Maria Assumpta Library in the main building. Heythrop also held many of its more precious volumes outside London, in the college repository in Egham, Surrey. It had a large and important collection of pre-1801 books, such as Edward Baddeley's collections and a first edition of Isaac Newton's Opticks. Heythrop students were also able to access the Senate House Library, and the libraries of other colleges of the university due to the college's special status.

Since the College's closure the library's collections have been available through the Senate House Library. As the former college library is still owned by the Jesuits in Britain, they have also made most of the collection available through the Heythrop Library reading room at the London Jesuit Centre. The earliest printed books have been deposited at Campion Hall, Oxford.

Academic profile
Heythrop prepared students for a range of specialist taught and research degrees. The college had five specialist institutes and centres which promoted research, conferences and a variety of educational outreach activities. These were the:
 * Centre for Christianity and Inter-religious Dialogue
 * Centre for Eastern Christianity
 * Centre for Philosophy of Religion
 * Religious Life Institute
 * Heythrop Institute for Religion and Society

All of the institutes conducted research in their own field.

The college offered full-time, and part-time courses through a combination of lectures, seminars and tutorials, including one-to-one tutorials.

The college had a growing research profile in its final years. It participated in the most recent Research Excellence Framework (2014) and gained considerable recognition for its research. The combined results for all elements of the REF placed Heythrop at 16th in the overall ranking for the Theology & Religious Studies unit of assessment. Overall, 22% of its research outputs was deemed world-leading and a further 40% was deemed internationally excellent. The research works recognised in its submission reflected efforts in both its Theology and Philosophy departments.

Department of Philosophy
The department offered a variety of specialist philosophy degrees with students attached to one of the Centres at the College, embracing both the continental and analytic traditions, and the history of philosophy.

Department of Theology
In addition to theology, religious studies and ethics, Heythrop was the first college in the world to offer undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses focused on the Abrahamic Religions led by members of each of the three Abrahamic faiths. The Theology department also offered a Divinity programme to candidates for the Catholic priesthood, making it a centre of Roman Catholic training and learning in the United Kingdom.

Pastoral and social studies
The college had a distinctive history and range of teaching in pastoral theology and allied disciplines, with a profile in the United Kingdom and internationally. The Pastoral and Social Studies Department offered degree programmes in the following fields: pastoral theology and practical theology, including:
 * Sociology of religion
 * Christian spirituality
 * Ethics
 * Liturgy
 * Canon law and psychology, including a specialism in the psychology of religion.

Bellarmine Institute
The Bellarmine Institute, named after St Robert Bellarmine, was the new name given to the Heythrop ecclesiastical Faculties of Theology and Philosophy in 2013. After moving to London and becoming established as a constituent college of the University of London, the Faculties had become dormant. They were reactivated on 17 September 2013 by a decree of the Congregation for Catholic Education of the Holy See, expanding the opportunities and teaching the college could offer to seminarians, priestly candidates and others. Before the closure of the college, it had been announced that the Society of Jesus, the college governors and the Archbishop of Westminster would look for ways for the ecclesiastical faculties to continue.

The institute offered degree programmes in theology and philosophy, intended for Catholic ordinands, those already engaged in church ministry and other scholars. The ecclesiastical degree programmes offered covered all three cycles for priestly formation in the Catholic Church.
 * Baccalaureate in Sacred Theology (STB)
 * Licentiate in Sacred Theology (STL)
 * Doctor of Sacred Theology (STD)
 * Baccalaureate in Philosophy (BacPhil)
 * Licentiate in Philosophy (PhL)
 * Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

In July 2019 both faculties were transferred to St Mary's University Twickenham and renamed Mater Ecclesiae College.

Public lectures
The college hosted a number of free public lectures, research seminars and study days throughout the year on a variety of philosophical and theological topics. Concurrently, Heythrop ran a number of paid events that were open to the general public.

Heythrop College ran the Loschert Lecture, a lecture series delivered by eminent philosophers, theologians and people of faith. The series was intended to reflect from a consciously Christian perspective, on significant social, political and ethical issues in society. The series was named after William Loschert, chairman of the trustees of the London Centre of Fordham University, who donated the funding for the lectures. Lecturers included Charles Margrave Taylor, Baroness Scotland, Peter Sutherland and David Brennan.

The Heythrop Journal
Heythrop College sponsored The Heythrop Journal, an international philosophy and theology academic journal. Published on a bimonthly basis, The Heythrop Journal was founded in 1960 by Bruno Brinkman as a format for research on the relational dialogue between philosophy and theology. Still retaining this original function, the current editor is Patrick Madigan, who was a faculty member of Heythrop College. , the journal continues to be published.

Student activities
Apart from its students' union, Heythrop's students established their in-house newspaper, The Lion, in 2010. It won the NUS "Best Student Media" award in 2011. In 2015, The Lion ceased publication.

Closure
In September 2013, Heythrop College announced that it would stop recruiting undergraduates for University of London degrees, noting its then discussions about a "strategic partnership" with St Mary's University, Twickenham. The initiative was attributed to financial difficulties the College faced as an autonomous college of the University of London. In June 2017 it was confirmed that the college would close in October 2018, with no plans to transfer any departments or continue elsewhere. Heythrop ultimately closed at the end of the 2017/18 academic year, with the final graduations taking place at Senate House on 12 December 2018. From 1 August 2017, the University of London took over the academic sanction previously granted by Heythrop College for the Bachelor of Divinity and related Diploma and Certificate of Higher Education programmes offered through the University of London (Worldwide).

The site (on prime Kensington real estate) was sold, with some of the proceeds reverting to the Religious of the Assumption. While Westbourne Capital Partners applied to redevelop the site as a luxury retirement complex,  this was later refused by the Mayor of London.

College faculty, 1971–2019

 * Elizabeth Burns, lecturer in philosophy of religion
 * Brendan Callaghan SJ principal 1985–1997, 1998–1999
 * Alan Carter, head of the philosophy department
 * Dan Cohn-Sherbok, visiting research fellow
 * Frederick Copleston SJ principal 1970–1974
 * John Cottingham, professorial research fellow
 * Johannes Hoff, professor of systematic theology
 * Michael Holman SJ principal 2010–2017
 * Kevin T. Kelly, lecturer in moral theology
 * Stephen Law, reader in philosophy
 * William Maher SJ principal 1975–1976
 * John Mahoney SJ principal 1976–1981

 * John McDade SJ principal 1999–2010
 * Christopher Moss SJ principal 1997–1998* Claire Ozanne principal 2017–2019
 * Martyn Percy, professorial research fellow
 * Philip Sheldrake, religious historian and theologian. Moulsdale Professorial fellow, University of Durham
 * Janet Soskice, philosophy of religion and ethics
 * George Stack, governor of the college
 * Peter Vardy, vice-principal and senior lecturer in philosophy
 * Francis Walker SJ, principal 1981–1985
 * Keith Ward, professorial research fellow. Former Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford

Notable alumni
have included:
 * Polycarpus Augin Aydin (born 1971), Metropolitan and Patriarchal Vicar for the Archdiocese of the Netherlands of the Syriac Orthodox Church

 * William Bentinck, Viscount Woodstock (born 1984), writer, social entrepreneur and heir to the Earldom of Portland
 * Joseph Buttigieg (1947–2019), scholar, teacher
 * Brendan Callaghan (born 1948), Jesuit priest and psychologist
 * Bernt Ivar Eidsvig (born 1953), Roman Catholic Bishop of Oslo
 * Michael Charles Evans (1951–2011), Roman Catholic Bishop of East Anglia
 * Charles Jason Gordon, Roman Catholic priest, appointed Archbishop of Port of Spain in 2017
 * Sebastian Gorka (born 1970), former adviser to Viktor Orbán and Deputy Assistant to President Donald Trump
 * Robert Hannigan (born 1965), Director of GCHQ (2014–2017)
 * Matt Malone, S.J,. Jesuit priest and current editor-in-chief of America Magazine
 * John Anthony McGuckin (born 1952), Orthodox Christian priest, academic and poet
 * David William Parry (born 1958), pastor, poet and dramaturge
 * Malcolm Patrick McMahon (born 1949), Roman Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool formerly Bishop of Nottingham
 * Michael Anthony Moxon (1942–2019), Anglican Dean of Truro Cathedral
 * Dame Sarah Mullally, Anglican Bishop of London (since 2018)
 * Martin Newland (born 1961), journalist and editor of The National
 * Catherine Pepinster (1959– ), editor and writer on religion
 * Keith Riglin (born 1957), Anglican Bishop of Argyll and The Isles
 * Lindsay Urwin (born 1956), Anglican Bishop of Horsham
 * Dominic Walker (born 1948), former Anglican Bishop of Reading and Bishop of Monmouth
 * Alan Williams, Roman Catholic Bishop of Brentwood

title: Heythrop College, University of London


text:
Quinquatria

In ancient Roman religion, the Quinquatria or Quinquatrus was a festival sacred to the Goddess Minerva, celebrated 19–23 March. According to Varro, it was so called because it was held on the fifth (quinqu-) day after the Ides, in the same way as the Tusculans called a festival on the sixth day after the Ides Sexatrus or one on the seventh Septimatrus. Both Varro and Festus state that the Quinquatrus was celebrated for only one day, but Ovid says that it was celebrated for five days, hence the name: on the first day no blood was shed, but that on the last four there were contests of gladiators. The first day was the festival proper, and that the following four were an expansion made perhaps in the time of Caesar to gratify the people. The ancient Roman religious calendars assign only one day to the festival.

Ovid says that this festival was celebrated in commemoration of the birthday of Minerva; but according to Festus it was sacred to Minerva because her temple on the Aventine was consecrated on that day. On the fifth day of the festival, according to Ovid, the trumpets used in sacred rites were purified; but this seems to have been originally a separate festival called Tubilustrium, which ancient calendars place on 23 March. When the celebration of Quinquatrus was extended to five days, the Tubilustrium would have fallen on the last day of that festival.

As this festival was sacred to Minerva, it seems that women were accustomed to consult fortune-tellers and diviners upon this day. Domitian caused it to be celebrated every year in his Alban villa, situated at the foot of the Alban hills, and instituted a collegium to superintend the celebration, which consisted of shows of wild beasts, of the exhibition of plays, and of contests of orators and poets.

There was also another festival of this name called Quinquatrus Minusculae or Quinquatrus Minores, celebrated on the Ides of June, on which the tibicines went through the city in procession to the temple of Minerva.

Historical significance
At the Quinquatria in 59, Nero invited his mother, Agrippina the Younger, to his villa near Baiae, in an attempt to assassinate her. His old tutor, Anicetus, whom he had raised to be captain of the fleet of Misenum, had undertaken to construct a vessel which could be sunk, without exciting suspicion. Agrippina landed at Bauli, between Baiae and Cape Misenum, and completed her journey in a litter. After the banquet, when night had fallen, she was induced to return to Bauli in the vessel which had been prepared for her destruction. But the mechanism did not work as planned, and Agrippina succeeded in swimming to shore, from which she proceeded to her villa on the Lucrine lake. Nero soon after succeeded in his goal, however, with further help from Anicetus.

title: Quinquatria


text:
Talk:Al Gore's views/subpage discussion

This kind of page is out of the norm - I can surmise that since the page is protected, you wanted to work on some part of it. The general way to to do that is to make a subpage like Al Gore/Draft for whole article rewrite) or Al Gore/Views for your section here. - SV (talk) 20:15, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why did you move this page? I thought Do_not_use_subpages. --AaronSw 20:21, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That rule applies only to encyclopedic content - for drafts, for metapages in your own user namespace, like User:AaronSw/Links, then its fine. Its important to distinguish between a rough work-page and something thats part of the encyclopedia. Thats the only reason why subpages are still in use. For other reasons, they need to be made into normal articles. Its a little open to interp, but if you want to ask other people, go here WP:VP and bring it up as an issue. - SV (talk) 20:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I want this to be a real page, since it's too long and uninteresting to most casual readers to go on Al Gore. (Also, it's the subject of a dispute.) Precedent: See List of Homestar Runner characters, the many divisions of cryptography, etc. --AaronSw 20:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First of all - an example from a fictional subject doesnt really carry over to real world topics. We tend to let the fiction people go on all they want to. Also, an edit war is the last reason to go splitting thigs off. You may "want" something to be one way, but this is an open and collaborative project - anyone can edit it (which is why you are here) and therefore, there are some general principles we need to go by. These are always changing, and you are welcome to discuss these principles - alter and change them with others if you like - but you cant just go doing thigs all willy nilly. For John Kerry, for example, I recently split off the page into a subsection for his Vietnam experience - this was rejected by others. The reason for that was that it was too big (still is, kind of) and therefore needed to be split. We later found consensus to do the split by history/campaign, and that was then carried over to GWB article. So, Relax. Enjoy wikilife. - SV (talk) 20:39, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(I don't mean to sound agitated, I just write tersely.) I'm not sure what your point is. Are you objecting to the split off or are you suggesting I shouldn't because others may object? If you feel I'm violating a principle, can you tell me where this principle is written down? --AaronSw 20:46, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok - 1. if you are acting outside of consensus, then yes that is one objection. 2. if this is done in the context of an edit war - thats an other. 3. if you are making a new page with redundant material .... 4. if its a split not done with feedback/consensus 5. if the split is improper (could be better made) 6. It the real meaning of the page is to make a working draft, while the page is in protection, then the policy is to make a draft (a subpage that sooner or later will be weeded out, unless its a user subpage) Those are the various objective objections. :) Apology/explanation appreciated - when people are new, and are quick, reactionary or terse, the tendncy is to think that theres an axe to grind, youre very young, or that you just arent familiar with the pace of wikipedia and the informal rules, etc. PS : I probably cant find the link for that 'polic' even though I may have wrote it a year or two ago ;) No - subpages are temporary - thats the rule. - SV (talk) 20:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, however none of your "If ..." clauses are true. --AaronSw

Then explain, rather than assume I'm a mindreader. :) - SV (talk) 20:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's no idea to create subpages in the article namespace, because they aren't subpages. Subpages in userspace get suppage navigation inserted etc., while in the article namespace the slash is interpreted as a part of the name. Put drafts in subpages in the user namespace in any fashion you want. In the article namespace, however, there is no reason not to put the draft in the place where the "finished article" will reside. (Wikipedia articles are all drafts of some sort, they are never done). — Sverdrup 21:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That may all be well and good, but its incorrect. The page in question is protected. If someone wants to edit the whole, page, one makes a temp subpage to chew on while its protected. The changes/ideas are then added to the article. See Terrorism for an example. The article should be worked on holistically, (or wholistically) especially in dispute cases, where nobody outside the discussion is going to have a clue about the petty particulars. -- SV  (talk) 21:10, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

SV, what would you like me to explain? --AaronSw 21:03, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Al Gore's views/subpage discussion


text:
Normal for Norfolk

Normal for Norfolk (or NFN) is a slang term used in some parts of England for something that is peculiar, or odd.

The term comes from the inventive language created by doctors the world over to insult their patients. Utilised by doctors and Social Services in Norfolk and elsewhere to depict patients of lesser intellect, some were moved to record the letters 'NFN' against the personal details of certain clients, where they were considered to be a bit strange or had peculiar habits. According to the urban myth, such clients were so common in that area that they were considered normal as far as Norfolk was concerned.

The term is considered derogatory because it portrays people from Norfolk as normally being strange, or peculiar with an inference that they are in-bred. The portrayal of people from Norfolk in this light is a common stereotype in England.

Within Norfolk itself, the phrase may also be known as "Normal for Wisbech", which is in neighbouring Cambridgeshire. In addition, most areas of the country have a regional variation of NFN, e.g. in North-West England, NFS (Normal for Stoke) may be heard.

Normal for Norfolk, was also used as the title of a BBC series, about farmer Desmond MacCarthy, trying to keep Wiveton Hall, his 17th Century manor house, going. This ran for 2 series (4 episodes and 6 episodes) in 2016 and 2018.

title: Normal for Norfolk


text:
Rift

In geology, a rift is a linear zone where the lithosphere is being pulled apart and is an example of extensional tectonics. Typical rift features are a central linear downfaulted depression, called a graben, or more commonly a half-graben with normal faulting and rift-flank uplifts mainly on one side. Where rifts remain above sea level they form a rift valley, which may be filled by water forming a rift lake. The axis of the rift area may contain volcanic rocks, and active volcanism is a part of many, but not all, active rift systems.

Major rifts occur along the central axis of most mid-ocean ridges, where new oceanic crust and lithosphere is created along a divergent boundary between two tectonic plates.

Failed rifts are the result of continental rifting that failed to continue to the point of break-up. Typically the transition from rifting to spreading develops at a triple junction where three converging rifts meet over a hotspot. Two of these evolve to the point of seafloor spreading, while the third ultimately fails, becoming an aulacogen.

Geometry
Most rifts consist of a series of separate segments that together form the linear zone characteristic of rifts. The individual rift segments have a dominantly half-graben geometry, controlled by a single basin-bounding fault. Segment lengths vary between rifts, depending on the elastic thickness of the lithosphere. Areas of thick colder lithosphere, such as the Baikal Rift have segment lengths in excess of 80 km, while in areas of warmer thin lithosphere, segment lengths may be less than 30 km. Along the axis of the rift the position, and in some cases the polarity (the dip direction), of the main rift bounding fault changes from segment to segment. Segment boundaries often have a more complex structure and generally cross the rift axis at a high angle. These segment boundary zones accommodate the differences in fault displacement between the segments and are therefore known as accommodation zones.

Accommodation zones take various forms, from a simple relay ramp at the overlap between two major faults of the same polarity, to zones of high structural complexity, particularly where the segments have opposite polarity. Accommodation zones may be located where older crustal structures intersect the rift axis. In the Gulf of Suez rift, the Zaafarana accommodation zone is located where a shear zone in the Arabian-Nubian Shield meets the rift.

Rift flanks or shoulders are elevated areas around rifts. Rift shoulders are typically about 70 km wide. Contrary to what was previously thought, elevated passive continental margins (EPCM) such as the Brazilian Highlands, the Scandinavian Mountains and India's Western Ghats, are not rift shoulders.

Rift initiation
The formation of rift basins and strain localization reflects rift maturity. At the onset of rifting, the upper part of the lithosphere starts to extend on a series of initially unconnected normal faults, leading to the development of isolated basins. In subaerial rifts, for example, drainage at the onset of rifting is generally internal, with no element of through drainage.

Mature rift stage
As the rift evolves, some of the individual fault segments grow, eventually becoming linked together to form the larger bounding faults. Subsequent extension becomes concentrated on these faults. The longer faults and wider fault spacing leads to more continuous areas of fault-related subsidence along the rift axis. Significant uplift of the rift shoulders develops at this stage, strongly influencing drainage and sedimentation in the rift basins.

During the climax of lithospheric rifting, as the crust is thinned, the Earth's surface subsides and the Moho becomes correspondingly raised. At the same time, the mantle lithosphere becomes thinned, causing a rise of the top of the asthenosphere. This brings high heat flow from the upwelling asthenosphere into the thinning lithosphere, heating the orogenic lithosphere for dehydration melting, typically causing extreme metamorphism at high thermal gradients of greater than 30 °C. The metamorphic products are high to ultrahigh temperature granulites and their associated migmatite and granites in collisional orogens, with possible emplacement of metamorphic core complexes in continental rift zones but oceanic core complexes in spreading ridges. This leads to a kind of orogeneses in extensional settings, which is referred as to rifting orogeny.

Post-rift subsidence
Once rifting ceases, the mantle beneath the rift cools and this is accompanied by a broad area of post-rift subsidence. The amount of subsidence is directly related to the amount of thinning during the rifting phase calculated as the beta factor (initial crustal thickness divided by final crustal thickness), but is also affected by the degree to which the rift basin is filled at each stage, due to the greater density of sediments in contrast to water. The simple 'McKenzie model' of rifting, which considers the rifting stage to be instantaneous, provides a good first order estimate of the amount of crustal thinning from observations of the amount of post-rift subsidence. This has generally been replaced by the 'flexural cantilever model', which takes into account the geometry of the rift faults and the flexural isostasy of the upper part of the crust.

Multiphase rifting
Some rifts show a complex and prolonged history of rifting, with several distinct phases. The North Sea rift shows evidence of several separate rift phases from the Permian through to the Earliest Cretaceous, a period of over 100 million years.

Rifting to break-up
Rifting may lead to continental breakup and formation of oceanic basins. Successful rifting leads to seafloor spreading along a mid-oceanic ridge and a set of conjugate margins separated by an oceanic basin. Rifting may be active, and controlled by mantle convection. It may also be passive, and driven by far-field tectonic forces that stretch the lithosphere. Margin architecture develops due to spatial and temporal relationships between extensional deformation phases. Margin segmentation eventually leads to the formation of rift domains with variations of the Moho topography, including proximal domain with fault-rotated crustal blocks, necking zone with thinning of crustal basement, distal domain with deep sag basins, ocean-continent transition and oceanic domain.

Deformation and magmatism interact during rift evolution. Magma-rich and magma-poor rifted margins may be formed. Magma-rich margins include major volcanic features. Globally, volcanic margins represent the majority of passive continental margins. Magma-starved rifted margins are affected by large-scale faulting and crustal hyperextension. As a consequence, upper mantle peridotites and gabbros are commonly exposed and serpentinized along extensional detachments at the seafloor.

Magmatism
Many rifts are the sites of at least minor magmatic activity, particularly in the early stages of rifting. Alkali basalts and bimodal volcanism are common products of rift-related magmatism.

Recent studies indicate that post-collisional granites in collisional orogens are the product of rifting magmatism at converged plate margins.

Economic importance
The sedimentary rocks associated with continental rifts host important deposits of both minerals and hydrocarbons.

Mineral deposits
SedEx mineral deposits are found mainly in continental rift settings. They form within post-rift sequences when hydrothermal fluids associated with magmatic activity are expelled at the seabed.

Oil and gas
Continental rifts are the sites of significant oil and gas accumulations, such as the Viking Graben and the Gulf of Suez Rift. Thirty percent of giant oil and gas fields are found within such a setting. In 1999 it was estimated that there were 200 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves hosted in rifts. Source rocks are often developed within the sediments filling the active rift (syn-rift), forming either in a lacustrine environment or in a restricted marine environment, although not all rifts contain such sequences. Reservoir rocks may be developed in pre-rift, syn-rift and post-rift sequences. Effective regional seals may be present within the post-rift sequence if mudstones or evaporites are deposited. Just over half of estimated oil reserves are found associated with rifts containing marine syn-rift and post-rift sequences, just under a quarter in rifts with a non-marine syn-rift and post-rift, and an eighth in non-marine syn-rift with a marine post-rift.

Examples

 * The Asunción Rift in Eastern Paraguay
 * The Canadian Arctic Rift System in northern North America
 * The East African Rift
 * The West and Central African Rift System
 * The Red Sea Rift
 * The Gulf of California
 * The Baikal Rift Zone, the bottom of Lake Baikal is the deepest continental rift on the earth.
 * The Gulf of Suez Rift
 * Throughout the Basin and Range Province in North America
 * The Rio Grande Rift in the southwestern US
 * The rift zone that contains the Gulf of Corinth in Greece
 * The Reelfoot Rift, an ancient buried failed rift underlying the New Madrid Seismic Zone in the Mississippi embayment
 * The Rhine Rift, in south western Germany, known as the Upper Rhine valley, part of the European Cenozoic Rift System
 * The Taupō Volcanic Zone in the north east North Island of New Zealand
 * The Oslo Graben in Norway
 * The Ottawa-Bonnechere Graben in Ontario and Quebec
 * The Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province in British Columbia, Yukon and Alaska
 * The West Antarctic Rift System in Antarctica
 * The Midcontinent Rift System, a late Precambrian rift in central North America
 * The Midland Valley in Scotland
 * The Fundy Basin, a Triassic rift basin in southeastern Canada
 * The Cambay, Kachchh, and Narmada rifts in northwestern Deccan volcanic province of India

title: Rift


text:
User talk:Rvollmert

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia. Hope you like it here and stick around. When you get a chance, drop us a note at New user log to introduce yourself.

I noticed you're interested in mathematics. Great! Our mathematics section is becoming an excellent reference. You might want to check out WikiProject Mathematics, which is the central page for this effort.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " " for your username and " ~ " for your username and a timestamp.

 * Welcome is a good place to start.
 * How does one edit a page gives editing help.
 * Manual of Style gives formatting info.
 * Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now.
 * Help covers a broad range of useful topics.
 * Village pump is a place to ask questions. *Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving.

You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 21:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Silas Marner
Yeah, it looks like I copyvio'd it without adding it to WP:CP. Sorry 'bout that. --Diberri | Talk 18:04, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Sidiq Koya
Hi there! I have a question about why you added the cleanup notice to the Sidiq Koya article. I am aware that the article is still little more than a stub (I am still looking for more information on him, and haven't forgotten about the matter) - but cleanup? In what way do you think the article is a mess? Please let me know:-) I'd appreciate it if you'd kindly reply on my talk page. Thank you. David Cannon 09:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining on my talk page. At any rate, I'll find some more info. on the man and update the article.  Thanks for the interest you've taken:-) David Cannon 11:31, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

AfD nomination of Aljažev stolp
An article that you have been involved in editing, Aljažev stolp, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 08:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cabal (software), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stack ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Cabal_%28software%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Cabal_%28software%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rvollmert