User talk:Psiĥedelisto/Archive1

In reply to your Hello, I'm Psiĥedelisto. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Telugu language, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Please note that the verifiability policy mandates that unsourced material that has been challenged, such as by a "fact" tag, or by its removal, may not be added back without a reliable, published source being cited for the content, using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article, and the burden is on the person wishing to keep in the disputed material. So if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so, following these requirements! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. In particular, "refer to history books" is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. Before you make a contentious change, you have to say exactly which history book, written by who, in what language, and on what page. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply: Refer to ^[1]

This book by the Archaeological Survey of India published in the year 1894 clearly says that Srikakulam is the first capital.

I hope it is an enough reference. I am going to make the appropriate changes to the article again with references. I sincerely wish somebody like you should have undone some guy's unreferenced mention of Srisailam (not my modification to Srikakulam) long back when it was wrongly written. There are several authentic books on it. Please let me know. Thank you

Hello William772, I have replied to you on your talk page. Thank you again for finding the book, and I hope that you will feel comfortable contributing more to Wikipedia going forwards now that you know our rules about citations. If you have any other question about Wikipedia, please feel free to ask me. If I don't know, I will find out. Or, you can ask in the Teahouse. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Psiĥedelisto, as a side note, may I encourage you to give Welcome messages to new users instead of giving them warning messages? Template:welcomelaws works particularly well (also available on Twinkle). That gives them a comprehensive view of Wikipedia policies and has a calming effect (if you get what I mean). Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya3. I do not really consider {{uw-unsourced1}} to be especially WP:BITEy, and in this case it was much more relevant than a generic welcome message and led to a resolution of the problem that left the encyclopedia better off. It's worth noting that while the revert was done with Twinkle, I manually picked {{uw-unsourced1}}, added my own comments to the end of it, and put it on their talk page. I think, in the future, I could perhaps use a welcome template along with the more specific template, but I do not think that my use of the template was improper. I also did not want to overwhelm him with all sorts of information, since the matter at hand was the addition of unsourced information to Telugu language. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think your warning was BITEy. My point is that new users need to know much more about Wikipedia policies than the specific issue in the revert. As you have seen, the editor is continuing to edit-war. So, please think of this as mentoring new users into proper Witiquette. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You might be right. When faced between giving too much information or not enough, it seems to be more wise to give too much. I will keep your suggestion in mind going forwards, and I'm sorry if you feel like my actions are a cause of any ongoing problem. My intention is always to help new users and improve the encyclopedia. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. The problem really is that Twinkle provides a welcome button only if the user's talk page is empty/uncreated. Once you give a warning message, the button doesn't come up, and such users never get welcome messages at all. So it has this unfortunate knock-on effect. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

With respect, you can't very well blame me for that in this case; Cluebot NG left him a warning before I ever came around. But you are right, welcome+more specific warning is the way to go. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused offence. I am not blaming you at all, just making a suggestion. We just need to work with the tools we have. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Agreed! I will let you know one thing, though, I was quite skeptical of the source that I helped him add into the article, as it seems to be a quite old book about antique items found in Andhra Pradesh (and other places in India). At the time I was attempting to assume good faith and thought that maybe there was some reference to etymology in the book, but I can see from the talk page(s) that his case is flimsy at best, at least as far as the source is concerned, and seems to be related to his personal opinion on the subject rather than what the RS's say. If this edit war continues I can help watch the article if need be. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: That escalated quickly ... I'm not sure it could have been helped. He was really adamant that he was the expert, and thus didn't need to answer your questions. He has apparently quit, we'll see. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. People always need to pass through some bumps before they can figure out how to work with Wikipedia. If this editor is keen about Wikipedia, he will be back after some reflection. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Kautilya for putting back some of the subject matter that you have undid. Thanks for realizing the validity and truth of at least some of what I put together. My salute to people like you. Some guy thinks that what I sourced was skeptical or flimsy and not related to etymology etc and makes these kind of comments as a so-called editor though I never made comments at his level, that is fine, I hope he will realize that I never said what I sourced was related to etymology in 100% but it is related to the background to support the history of the etymology. And what he may be forgetting or hasn't done a proper research is that I did not put that subject matter to begin with. I just corrected it with an old source that he honored previously. I see you had your etymology on the talk page as "Kautilya was the author of Arthashastra, the earliest treatise on politics and economics in the world, and the mentor and Chief Minister of Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya empire.Etymologically, "Kautilya" means "belonging to Kutila", where the latter means "round" or "curvy". Kutila was a popular female name in the first millenium B.C..." I just loved it. Before commenting on my edits, somebody needs to go back and see if I added it originally or if I just corrected it. And nothing in that is my opinion. Somebody needs to rethink as an editor before making such comments. Anyways my salute to you and let the "somebody" learn from you. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William772 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@William772: @Kautilya3: I have read the current "Etymology" section and am in agreement that it appropriately reflects what the sources say. We have reached consensus — next time let's try to do it without personal attacks. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"next time let's try to do it without personal attacks" somebody seriously need to grow up. I have never made any p-a unlike somebody who has a problem and should go back and check their own comments. I am grown enough to salute people who realize their flaws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William772 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

		The Philippine Barnstar
		Your work on Tagalog profanity article is commendable, I must say. Cheers! Bluesphere 14:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much!! I guess I am officially not a n00b anymore Psiĥedelisto (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Psiĥedelisto. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast—I had to check to make sure I didn't take a little nap at my desk! Thank you very much Psiĥedelisto (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for helping out with DYK reviews. Just to let you know that they've asked reviewers to limit the icons they put on reviews, because the extra load is creating that long list of hidden templates. Your smiley face should probably be left out next time. Best, Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I'm not going to pretend to understand the technical considerations here, but would it be all right if I applied WP:SUBST to {{oldsmiley}} (alias {{=3}})? That way, the template does not have to be "resolved" except at the time of editing. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: can you explain things better, please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: It might sound extremely childish to you, but I find Wikipedia's emoticons, just as I find emoji in other settings, to be very useful in avoiding misunderstandings and reading the emotion of a sentence. So much so, that I have used my Inkscape abilities to start modernizing the {{=3}} template: I have replaced all of the most commonly used emoticons therein with SVG versions that have transparent backgrounds, and when I find that I want to use one that is still GIF format, I fix it. I'm not the most experienced editor, but I really don't think my use of emoticons breaks policy: I would be willing to use subst:, but you telling me not to use any at all I find a big hindrance to my communication. I have even made AutoHotKey shortcuts to help me enter the emoticons in Wikipedia format. I do not come from a rich country, but as a child my father brought me to a psychologist (maybe psychiatrist) who said that I display some traits of Asberger's syndrome. I am not using this as an excuse, but as a way to help you understand why I find the emoticons valuable. I suppose that I could use :), et cetera, but I do not understand why this is necessary in 2017, and I find the graphical versions much more valuable. Sorry once again...I hope I adequately explained why I like the emoticons. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you have explained yourself very well, and I see by your talk page that you do enjoy using these emoticons. But there has been some discussion at WT:DYK about the use of extra icons and scripts on the DYK nomination templates, and that's all I'm referring to. Waiting for BlueMoonset to weigh in here about those DYK templates. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

When the DYK nominations page is rendered, all of the templates are rendered too, including smileys and other emoticons. So it takes up as much room as the ultimate code for that template, which adds up on the page given 250 to 300 individual nominations, each of which has several templates as part of their code. If you can minimize your use of emoticons, that would be very helpful; the past 24 hours has been the first time that all of the nominations on the page were visible since last year, and when Yoninah started this thread, several pages could not be seen mostly due to overuse of templates. Thank you for whatever you can do to reduce their use. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I still don't understand why template substitution isn't an acceptable alternative. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

On 31 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Deseret alphabet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Deseret alphabet. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Deseret alphabet), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Psiĥedelisto, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Gosh I was just trying to have fun, you don't have to be so harsh? And all I did was try to amuse people but clearly you don't have a sense of humor. Bangtanandbeyond (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bangtanandbeyond: Cracking jokes in articles is not acceptable as it can confuse readers and even lead to WP:CITOGENESIS; that said, WP:JOKEs are sometimes acceptable outside of article space. If you want to edit a wiki whose primary purpose is to entertain, try Uncyclopedia. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright bro 😒😒 Bangtanandbeyond (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello guys, at the top of WP:COIN I was invited to do this, so I'm doing it. Please skip to the bold paragraph if you don't want to read my life story.

My Wikipedia history has been uneventful up to now. I edit articles about writing systems, Philippines, law, etc... (Q, Deseret alphabet, Baybayin, User:Psiĥedelisto/Penal Code of Spain). I also upload some vector graphics and have recently been working on the ASL Wikipedia. So, what I mean is, I edit articles about things that are uncontroversial or not well covered, because I enjoy doing so, and because these topics despite not being well covered are of significant interest to me.

That all changed recently. In December, I watched on Netflix an auto customization TV show called Inside West Coast Customs and it reminded me of another show I used to watch online ten years ago, Pimp My Ride. Sure enough, the company involved was the same, but I couldn't find any information about them online. So, I deviated from my usual habits and wrote West Coast Customs.

In the middle of writing it was repeatedly vandalized by an IP, and then in January it happened again and the IP's friends (I think the Wiki term is "meat puppets") claimed to be employees and blanked it again, so I requested page protection, and my request was granted.

Today, the IP is back and is now claiming that I only made this article due to my "personal motivations" and is hurling accusations my way about "fake news". Another editor looked at it, and quite reasonably found that all of my contributions were well sourced, and simply added a Web Archive link for a link that had broken since December.

I am drowning in policy due to COI editors at Talk:West Coast Customs. I marked the page with {{Connected contributor}}, but now I'm not sure that that was the right thing to do. Honestly, if I could go back and tell myself not to bother writing this article I would, but now that it's done I don't want to let these editors bring down Wikipedia's integrity by even 0.01% by getting their advert reinstated and 50K bytes deleted. I would really appreciate a second pair of eyes looking over my actions, the article's talk page, and provide guidance if possible or even just reassurance. Thank you for your time Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think since the article was semi-protectd in mid-January the problems have ceased. I have added it to my watchlist, but I don't think much else needs to be done. Your contributions on the talk page looked good to me. Huon (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Huon, thanks for that. One question: was {{Connected contributor}} appropriate? WP:COIN says:

1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{uw-coi}}.

I can see I ranted way too much and really buried the lead, but that's fundamentally why I made this help request, I was unsure if it was OK for me to add that template even if no investigation had been done at WP:COIN, that's what I meant by "drowning in policy"—I meant that even though I read a lot of policy pages, I soon came across WP:COIN which made me wonder whether or not the template was appropriate. Thanks again for your input Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you technically could go through COIN, but at the very least the now-blocked account and the IP which made an "Official WCC ReEdit" (whatever that is) are clear-cut cases. I don't think the other IPs, with edits such as this one, are in a good position to claim not to have a CoI. If they did, my advice would be to bring the matter to COIN and await a consensus there, but right now I see no need to do anything. Huon (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much. I understand now, it's a lot like the WP:PROD process. I marked them as COI, so they can dispute it by removing the mark, or just leave it well enough alone because they know that they have a COI (like how editors can remove a PROD if they really think an article should stay despite another editor's opinion). Thank you so much for your help, you've clarified this policy for me. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've just reviewed this article against the GA criteria - it's basically ready to go, but needs someone to address a few minor issues first. If you'd like to do so, please feel free - ping me or drop me a note on my talkpage when you want me to take another look. Nice work on the article, it's really very good. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Deseret alphabet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yunshui -- Yunshui (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The article Deseret alphabet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Deseret alphabet for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yunshui -- Yunshui (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

...I just wanted to show a way forward; I am not familiar with the topic, but...just saying that 3 users are for something, and only one against it...well, Wikipedia is not a democracy. if possible, include all theories which can be adequately sourced. I for one am never sure about what is "right" or "wrong". Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Sure, absolutely, I understand that. I was just showing that it was an edit war, not just me and him going back and forth. Thank you for the protection, since they ignored their User talk I'm thinking they'll try to edit again, it won't go through, and maybe now they'll see Talk:Telugu_language#Semi-protection. My preferred version of the article has no mention to the Indus script, but as I wrote there I am willing to meet him in the middle if he discusses it with us and then does not keep edit warring. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I see you're the one who made the New Jersey area code map. They have added a new code, 640 over the 609 region. Link 1.Granted it wont take place until 2018 but it is an official area code now. Figured I'd ask you since you're the one who made the picture initially - Thanks! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Semmendinger: Done, thanks for the heads up Psiĥedelisto (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Psiĥedelisto

The <e> of 'the' should be yellow (for schwa), the first <e> of 'encyclopedia' would be better as pink than blue (as most people, UK and US, pronounce the first sound as if it was written 'i'), the <y> should be a white/pink diphthong, the <o> should be yellow, and the second <e> should be red not pink.

The words on the SW charts are restricted to functional vocabulary, those that Gattegno considered contribute to the 'spirit of the language'. General (non-functional) vocabulary items, which easily translate from one language to another, don't appear unless they are very basic terms. If they are needed in a SW class, they are created on the fly using the Fidel. So 'encyclopedia' would never be written in colour on a chart. (You can see the latest version of the English SW word charts at https://www.pronunciationscience.com/materials/silent-way-for-english/ and you'll get a sense of the words that Gattegno included.)

'Encyclopedia' could, conceivably, have appeared on a WiC chart, because these contain words which exemplify the spelling patterns of a language. If you decide to update your picture for that page, it would look more authentic to use italic letters. (It's not possible to reproduce the exact look of the charts because they were designed using a bespoke typeface.)

How did you get interested in Gattegno's work?

With best wishes

PiersMessum 11:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Kie vi lernis, ke vorto-komenca "p" silentas antaŭ "s"? Neniam mi aŭdis tion... nu, pli ĝuste, neniam mi ne aŭdis /p/ en la radiko psiĥ- aŭ iu alia "ψ-" vorto.

--Thnidu (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Tiel mia patro eldiris ĝin. Eble liakaze ĝi estis fuŝinfluo de la angla — miregas mi ekscii ke, tiu eldiro ne estas universalaĵo (kaj, verŝajne, ne ĝustaĵo). Psiĥedelisto (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Tion mi suspektis. Memoru — nu, eble neniam estis instruita al vi — ke unu el la dek ses fundamentaj reguloj de nia lingvo estas

Ĉiu vorto estas legata, kiel ĝi estas skribita.

(Simile do ĉe, ekz-e, ksilofono.)

--Thnidu (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately I can't remember the location of source file, I designed it in 2015 and I may be deleted it (I'm sorry). I can create a new Thuluth script soon and upload SVG to commons, thanks --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 16:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

67.245.222.116 (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You had a very complicated request that didn't get answered. For questions like this, WP:VPT might be the place to ask. I don't know if it is even possible to determine the number of page views from The Philippines.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I have raised discussions on Talk:Tagalog profanity about the usage of several Tagalog words deemed also fully or partially profane, such as

• letse (expletive intensifier, similar to English "shit", typically Cebuano, but also seeing use in Tagalog such as in the lyrics of the rock song by Eraserheads O Pare Ko, in the line "Letseng pag-ibig 'toooo!")
• hayop ("criminal" or "scoundrel", typically seen in use in telenovelas, but also seeing use when a family of a victim of a criminal faces the suspect[s], such as in a police station or in a courtroom, like in "Hayop ka! Ba't mo ginawa iyon!?'', meaning "You criminal! Why would you do that!?")
• buwisit/bwisit (a loanword from Hokkien meaning "bad luck", but also mildly profane when meaning a "nuisance", or in English vulgar language, a "cocksucker")
• lintik or hinayupak (possibly both a Tagalog nearest equivalent to English "goddamn/damn" in a profane sense, sometimes combined into hinayupak na lintik such as in Hinayupak kang lintik na bwisit ka!, meaning "You goddamn cocksucker!")

Please comment on this if possible. You may help on expanding the Tagalog profanity page regarding those words. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@TagaSanPedroAko: Sorry I hadn't gotten around to this. I love editing wiki, but just haven't had time to do it. I see that users have already filled in some of those blanks -- looks like only letse and hayop remain. Maybe I can find some time to fill those in! Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Always On The Road, Psiĥedelisto!

Wikipedia editor Bennv3771 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Including English translations of the Episode titles, if they exist, would be helpful.

To reply, leave a comment on Bennv3771's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Bennv3771 (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

More: Consider adding appropriate Wikiproject templates to the talk pages so editors interested and experienced in that topic area can be made aware of the article. Also, you shouldn't rephrase quotes or if you do, then don't put the rephrased sentence within quotation marks. Please read MOS:PMC for more on this. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Psiĥedelisto. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih^Talk 02:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Pet Fooled, Psiĥedelisto!

Wikipedia editor Enwebb just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice work, seems like a well-rounded article!

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

Learn more about page curation.

Enwebb (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Can I ask you to provide a Tagalog IPA for the Insiang article? I think it'll be beneficial for foreign readers. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: Done. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Ĉu vi uzas Facebook aŭ similan? --Nusaybah (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You reverted my removal of the image from this nav box. Can you perhaps take a look at my comment on Template talk:Numeral systems which demonstrates the problem I am trying to solve.

Believe me I tried every thing I could think of to try to convince the popup to show a different image from the article. And in fact I never fixed it, only got it to show no image. Do you know what makes the popup decide on a particular image to use?

If there is a tag that turns it off I suspect it may be a good idea to put that tag in every navbox. An image designed for an entire set is very likely misleading when talking about one item in that set, as most of such an article will be about how that one item is *different* from the set. Spitzak (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spitzak: Hello - I'm sorry, I thought I checked the talk page before reverting but unfortunately it seems like I failed to. However, I know exactly how to fix this problem. I will do so and then explain why it worked on the talk page. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Cool looking forward to seeing the fix. I did not add the note to the talk page until after you reverted, so you did not miss anything.Spitzak (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spitzak: I hope I explained it well enough. If there are any other articles you'd like me to fix due to this problem, just let me know and I'll do so if you don't want to do it yourself. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I got it. Mostly need to be 2:1 ratio. I think it is likely almost every page using this navbox could use a different image but they can be fixed gradually. It does seem like a "don't use this" tag on images would help a lot.Spitzak (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Psiĥedelisto,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Psiĥedelisto,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey there. In your vector art of Lupang Hinirang in Baybayin, "ng" and "nang" should be both written in Baybayin as "nang" (ᜈᜅ᜔). Although "ng" and "nang" have different meanings (Prior to Filipinos using Roman alphabet), they are both pronounced as "nang".

When I was learning Baybayin, I was told that "Kung ano ang sulat, siya ang baybay." (What is pronunciation, that's what to write.)

Kyleroo (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kyleroo: How right you are! I used an automated service to make it unfortunately, and that is painfully obvious. Someone fixed the inscription on 1 February, so if you can confirm that that's correct, I'll correct the image proper. Sorry about that and thanks for the message. --Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: It's alright. And, yes, I can confirm that the inscription correction is correct but he forgot to revise the ng in Perlas ng Silangan. May I know what is that automated service you are using? - Kyleroo (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kyleroo: I'm not sure, I think it was this one but it was a long time ago. Either way, please completely revise the text on Commons, let me know when that's done, and I'll upload a new version of the image. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I'm done. I fixed an another ng and replaced bituin with bituwin because that's how Filipinos pronounce it nowadays. You can edit that file now if you want. Kyleroo (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Would you refer to the Universal church as "Roman Catholic Church" or the "Catholic Church"? Just curious to know. If "Roman Catholic Church" and due to WP:NPOV, I respect that. Personally, I would choose the later to emphasize the inclusion of the Eastern Catholic Churches(sui iuris).Manabimasu (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Manabimasu: I don't understand why I'm being asked this question, perhaps due to my authorship of Church Militant (website), but I would always use Roman Catholic Church because Eastern Catholics are under the authority of Rome, so calling them Roman Catholic is correct in every sense of the term. If I wanted to stress that Eastern Catholics are included, I would write Roman Catholics (including Eastern Catholics) I would avoid completely the term Universal church on its own as being very POV-pushy, because as you know each denomination has its own idea of who is in that church, and even within churches more liberal members might extend it beyond where conservative members would. I would only ever write Universal church as part of a quote, or followed up by an explanation of what I mean by it. If you provide me a sentence I can tell you how (or if) I'd write that on Wikipedia. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Good to knowManabimasu (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Psiĥedelisto,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You created that article, yet you don't take credit for it on your user page. I'm curious: why not? -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@JohnAlbertRigali: Another user added a bunch of WP:POV-pushy material to it (§ Coverage by other news sources), which takes more than half of the article, then got mad when I tried to remove it. I decided I had better things to do than argue about it, even though another editor was supporting me. The essay on that page is not my work, and in any case the parts of the article I did write are completely overshadowed by it…I'd like to just forget it, I regret creating the article, it's a black mark on my record of positive contributions. I'm sorry. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Any Wikipedian with half a brain can (and should) determine that you created the article with its essential core and that Wowaconia added the POV content. Regardless of the article's condition, I'm glad that you created it. I'm not certain when I'll get to it, but it's now on my lengthy to-do list to provide a counterweight against Wowaconia's lopsided content. NPOV is becoming increasingly equated with leftist POV on Wikipedia, and it needs to be pushed back. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@JohnAlbertRigali: As part of my redesigned user page, I decided to add it. Thanks, Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 03:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

-JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Psiĥedelisto,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Psiĥedelisto,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 889 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

More information Rank, Username ...

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

Close

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Messiah (American TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Poppies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Psiĥedelisto,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for the reminder. Unfortunately, consensus was that my article was not interesting, so I have had to withdraw it from consideration, as there's no arguing with that. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe the consensus was that the proposed hooks were not interesting but said nothing about the article; even though an article may be interesting in terms of its legal details, it may be hard to construct an interesting hook from legal technicalities and decisions. I think that's what happened here. I hope you'll try DYK again in the future, and I'm sorry things didn't work out this time. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm in the (possibly enviable, I must admit!) situation of having three unrelated article subjects all interested in my helping them out here at the same time, while also trying to have a life outside Wikipedia. So I will get to them, but it will take longer than it would otherwise, and I'm not the fastest writer at the best of times. --GRuban (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@GRuban: That's quite all right. I have been here long enough to understand that things do not happen very fast at Wikipedia, and that there's nothing wrong with this. Remember, WP:NODEADLINE. This is why I stuck 2channel on WP:GAN basically as soon as I was able to, as I knew it could take two months or longer to be reviewed; my DYK's both took around a month to pass; I've even had Commons deletions take 30–45 days. You're very fast compared to other processes around here. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)