User talk:Singularity42/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Another question.

I am a bit confused about the Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects rules, could you do me a favor and help me to understand? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Teenagelustband

I've unblocked Teenagelustband to allow him to rename his account. He seems to have answered the standard set of COI questions you put forth and has proposed a new name. As always, feel free to revert my actions if there is a problem. Kuru (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request update

Hey Singularity42 - while patrolling the never-ending Requests for Unblock queue I came across User talk:TMeubac. In case you are no longer watching their talk page, they have now posted a response to your COI questions from the 19th. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion on this IPBE request

• Sthubbar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See this unblock discussion where I declined to grant IPBE. Let me know if you disagree, since you left a comment earlier in the discussion. User:Sthubbar is editing today using his registered account, so he must have another way to access Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the decision. Singularity42 (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I am on vacation in Cambodia, so yes, I can make edits. This doesn't change the fact that when at my residence I am regularly blocked.Sthubbar (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a limit to what I can do at this stage. As EdJohnston pointed out, it is usually best if a CheckUser signs off on granting the exemption. I checked in with User:Elockid, a CheckUser familiar with your request, and they were not favourable at this time. I might follow up with Elockid. I am going to defer at this time to the more experienced admins. Singularity42 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm back

For anyone wondering where I disappeared to for the last few weeks, I had a bit of a family emergency (everything is fine now), and I had to step away from the time I usually put to volunteering with Wikipedia. I'm back now... (that's a good thing, right?). Singularity42 (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, why you reverted my change on Jimbo's userpage? I just want to protect his page from vandalism. XXN (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A couple points:

1. What you did was add the template that's added to a page after an administrator protects pagea (which usually an admin adds when they have changed the protection settings of the page). Adding that template does not make the page protected.
2. Only an administrator (such as myself) can protect a page. You can go to WP:RPP to request an administrator protect a page (but don't do it this case because of my last two points below).
3. In any event, there is no basis to protect Jimbo's user page. There has not been a high volume of vandalism on his user page.
4. For user pages of active users (and Jimbo is definitely an active user), we generally see what preference they have for protection of their user page. Jimbo has made it very, very clear that his user page is available for anyone to edit.

Singularity42 (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Harmen Vanhoorne - Wikipedia Entry

Hi guy Would you explain to me why you deleted the "Harmen Vanhoorne" Entry when it obviously came from the site harmenvanhoorne.com and not from worldofbrass.com (that was plainly duplicate content of the biography)?? Kind regards, Fab <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcolling (talk • contribs)

I already explained on your talk page in my "Note", why it is irrelevant whether the source was the original source, or whether there was an earlier original source. In both cases, it would still be a copyright violation. Please let me know if you don't understand what I wrote on your talk page. I would also ask that you comment there in order to keep the thread on just one page. Singularity42 (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Alvin Achenbaum

I speedied this before I saw your message, now restored for the time being, although I have doubts about its survival Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. However, the one external link does support that there is a large library collection named after him. And some of those awards sounds impressive. So I'm willing to see if the author can turn up some references, and used the {{citation needed}} template to bring the more pressing issues to her attention. 13:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Red Links

Your point was taken and I thank you for your tips. However, I wonder if your interpretation of red links is mistaken. The page you pointed me to states:

"Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles.

Articles should not have red links to topics that are not likely to have an article..."

I note that the links I added were to substantive pages which have no direct equivalent within Wikipedia. I further note that the articles in question are not listed on your user page under "Articles I plan on creating".

It goes without saying that where a Wikipedia page exists on a subject, one should link to that page rather than an external site on the same topic. Even if the Wikipedia page is of lower quality than an external source, it is incumbent on the conscientious Wikipedia editor to improve that page rather than simply linking to an external source. I take your point in that regard and wholeheartedly agree with you. If I inadvertently linked to an external source where a Wikipedia page was available, I apologize for doing so.

That being said, we all have a limited amount of time to spend editing Wikipedia, and it might never be possible to create Wikipedia page about every case decided by the Canadian courts. Until an internal page is available, it is my position that Wikipedia is improved by limited use of relevant external links where no analogous page exists on Wikipedia itself.

Wikipedia's rules regarding external links generally are not as inflexible as you suggest. The page you sent me to reads as follows:

Some external links are welcome (see What can normally be linked, below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.

It is my position that a limited number of relevant external links are not only helpful but necessary in order for Wikipedia to be informative as opposed to misleading. This is particularly the case in the legal field where a single leading case might not provide a complete and up-to-date understanding of the law. For example, Wikipedia has a page on the Askov case but no page on the Morin case, even though Morin significantly refined the law and is arguably the most relevant authority today under Section 11(b) of the Charter. Any website which provides its users with a summary of Askov but fails to so much as link to Morin is actually doing a great disservice by misleading its readers. Clearly, the inclusion of such a link (as opposed to a dead-end "red link") is "justifiable according to (Wikipedia's) guideline and common sense".

Unfortunately, there are countless instances on Wikipedia where relevant and necessary information is simply missing. Ideally, many of these gaps can eventually be filled by diligent editors such as yourself. Practically speaking, however, there will always be external sources which contain information that Wikipedia doesn't. Where this is the case, I maintain that the limited placement of relevant external links is "justifiable according to (Wikipedia's) guideline and common sense". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.54.230 (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through polices, etc. now at the moment (although any of my talk page stalkers are welcome to help :) ). But as an experienced Wikipedian, I can tell with absolute certainty:

1. Except in very special circumstances (and this is not one of them) do not allow external links in the main body of an article. They are kept to references and the external links section. You cannot use an external link as a substitute for a wikilink to a Wikipedia article. Either don't link to that topic or use a red link if the article does not exist.
2. The point of the red link is it makes it clear that an article should be created on that topic. For example, Wikipedia does not currently have an article on R. v. Morin. Should Wikipedia have an article on that topic? Of course. Is it unfortunate that Wikipedia does not? Yes. Will the redlink on the Section 11 article lead an editor to creating that article (either me, other editor who does a lot of Canadian law work on Wikipedia, or yourself after creating an account)? Most likely. In fact, I didn't realize some of those article didn't exist until the red links showed up. As a result, I anticipate at least working on one or two of those articles this month.

Linking to your own website instead of wikilink within the main body of an article generally not allowed. Singularity42 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

And here are the links to the appropriate policies:

1. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#External links: "These hyperlinks should not appear in the article's body text, nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section."
2. Wikipedia:External links: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. And later: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article."
3. Wikipedia:Red link#When to create red links: "Create red links everywhere they are relevant to the context for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia."

I could link to more policies, but I think my point is made. Singularity42 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I understand your interpretation of the rules, and disagree with it to a certain (very limited) extent. My understanding is that the limited placement of relevant external links may be "justifiable according to (Wikipedia's) guideline and common sense" where no analogous page exists on Wikipedia. Whether a given link is justifiable in the circumstances is not a clear black and white test, but a test of reasonableness, reviewable by editors over time.

Frankly, I cannot imagine a more legitimate justification for an external link than a situation where the content presently available on Wikipedia gives an incomplete (and potentially misleading) summary of the law in a particular area. A comprehensive new page on Morin would mitigate the problem in this one instance, but I could point to dozens of other examples in the Charter articles alone where this same problem exists. It is not realistic or practical to simply litter Wikipedia with red links and expect volunteer editors to completely and flawlessly summarize every important case in Canadian jurisprudence. Where Wikipedia provides incomplete information, some external links are necessary, at least in order to pick up the slack in the meantime.

I understand that you have put a lot of hard work into these Wikipedia pages and you are rightfully territorial to some extent, so I will refrain from making any further changes without your permission. However, I ask you to consider whether at least a footnote (within a "ref" tag) beside a red link might be a reasonable compromise solution to the problem I have identified.

If you do not agree that this is appropriate, I wonder if there is any avenue of appeal within the Wikipedia community... I understand that you are a practicing lawyer. Perhaps we could each prepare a factum and present our oral arguments via Skype. ;-) 24.70.54.230 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand your position. However, the Wikipedia policies are pretty clear and do not require interpretation. If you disagree with the policies, there are various forums on Wikipedia to discuss changing them, and I can help point you in that direction if that is something you are really interested in pursuing.

That being said, your website does not count meet the definition of a reliable source as defined by WP:Reliable sources. Peter Hogg's text, for example, would be a reliable source. Your website, however, would be considered self-published material.

Finally, I am not being "territorial", and I do not own the article (see WP:OWN). Although I am also an administrator on Wikipedia, I am also just a regular editor for content issues. In this case, I am approaching this as us having an editorial disagreement, and with me supporting my position by reference to the most relevant guidelines and policies. The issue is resolved by determining what the consensus is (see WP:Consensus). If we cannot reach a consensus between the two of us (and at this point, I doubt we will on this issue), then as the person trying to introduce the new content, you should try to follow one of the steps at WP:Dispute resolution (if this is still something you wish to pursue).

I am more than happy to help you learn more about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as overall I want to encourage more editors in this area of Wikipedia. But I would very much like you to become familiar with WP:Reliable sources, WP:MOS, and WP:No original research. Good luck! Singularity42 (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Indiscriminate Removal of Relevant External Links in Canadian Charter Articles". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 November 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Saint_Maighneann

Hi! Singularity42 ... I would like to add the Cill Mhaighneann 700AD painting http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cill_Mhaighneann_700_AD.jpg ... to the article Saint Maighneann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maighneann .....because it illustrates the lie of the land between 600AD and 700AD Kilmainham is a very famous part of Dublin which today has very significant buildings such as Kilmainham Gaol dating from 1796 and the Royal Hospital Kilmainham dating from 1686. However the area under discussion in the article Saint Maighnean (whom the area is called after) was very different at the time when he built his church. Both the article and the painting are attempting to help people visualise what the area looked like when Saint Maighenn there.

If it is unacceptable to include the image in the article ...... I would be very grateful if you could assist me adding a link to the image via External Links . or under a heading entitled Art ... as is common in many other Wiki articles...... Many Thanks for your kind attention..... Michael Msriposte (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Other editors have already explained the problem with the picture (which I'm not going to repeat here). My involvement had very little to do with that. After the image was removed, you included a link to the Commons page with the picture. That's not an appropriate use of Commons. Commons is for pictures to be used in various Wikimedia pages, and is not generally used an external link. There appears to be a WP:Consensus that the image is not appropriate for the article in question. Unless the consensus changes, that really ends the issue. Singularity42 (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Singularity42 .... thank you for your prompt reply ........ I appreciate that original decision to remove the image was not yours .... and I appreciate that using a link to the image as I did is not appropriate ..... I am seeking a compromise ..... if the image cannot be included in the article surely it must be allowable to include a link to it by some method. I believe that the editors concerned should examine the image in the context and relevance to the article Saint Maighneann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maighneann. I also notice that the editor who removed the image in the first place is not a registered editor with Wikipedia. I would be grateful if you would use your experience and expertise here achieve a compromise solution this ... as the image is greatly beneficial to the understanding of the article ....... and the image was in place undisturbed for several months before it was removed. . many thanks for your kind attention..... Michael Msriposte (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind taking a closer look and seeing if I can help determine a comprise (if one is possible in the situation), but I have an unusually busy week at work this week. If you don't mind the wait, I'll see what I can do - but I might be a bit slow responding to queries. If you want something a bit quicker, I can refer this to someone else to take a look at it. Singularity42 (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for that Singularity42 ...... I'd be very happy to wait until you have time to discuss it further with your colleagues ....much appreciated... Michael 46.7.242.150 (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Did i do it right?

Hello once again, i tried to do what you told me about copying within Wikipedia on this article (i have added the template on the talk page too). I hope i did it right? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Indiscriminate Removal of Relevant External Links in Canadian Charter Articles, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Indiscriminate Removal of Relevant External Links in Canadian Charter Articles, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:AGK (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

67.218.41.166

Hi Singularity42. Just a note to let you know that I've slightly amended the block you placed on this IP, to allow editing by registered users (although IP editing and account creation remain blocked). If you've any issue with this, feel free to restore your original block conditions without consultation. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 13:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Re; adding the Cill Mhaighneann Painting

Hi! Singularity ..... you said you would be willing to mediate on the question of having the Cill Mhaighneann painting added to the Saint Maighneann article (as opposed to the Kilmainham article). I know you have been very busy recently .... but I have much faith in your fairness on these issues ...... and I feel that the image is central to assisting readers understanding the topography of the area of Cill Mhaighneann in the 7th Century. Hopefully you can get back to the issue soon.....atb.. Michael Msriposte (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge request

Could you merge two sandbox articles so that the user contribution histories are together? The articles are User:Crtew/Norberto Miranda Madrid and User:Crtew/Norberto Miranda. The article will be eventually submitted under User:Crtew/Norberto Miranda Madrid. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xeno^talk 04:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Made edits to John D. Kobs' page that included sources

Hello,

I have added sources to this article to verify the validity of the individual outside of just the company Apartment List. Please see the changes.

Thank you, Fallon Roche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.2.42.43 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Abu Dabi GP 2021

Hi,

I just read the article, espacially the race comments. I'm not sure if you added it.

As an objective informational page, this should not be included, because it is subjective. The interpretation of how the comments are stated is that the race was 'fixed'.

It was cleary hectic on the last lap and therefore confusing. But these comments are placed to be interpreted as a race fix. Which it was not. There were more infringements during the race that would favour Hamilton and Mercedes AMG F1, than the last SC call.

So there are many interpretations of the events that were going on. If you would put an reaction section, you should do it from more sources an not just one. Because that's the intepretation of one indivual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sazza72 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added that content. I may have done some copyediting on it, though. Singularity42 (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

i want to write an article

Hello Singularity42Saleem301 (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC) Hello sir I want to work on an article I have a lot of pus above the article name Anjum Lucknowi can you help me make this If you can help me it would be great if you help me

Article name : Anjum Lucknowi

Help Me Singularity42Saleem301 (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you followed the advice and instructions at Help:Your first article? Singularity42 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Assist requested.

Ah, it has been so many years since I've used a Sandbox that I didn't know there was a limit (there certainly didn't used to be) and I don't know how to find these many others that you found. Any advice? Unschool 20:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help; I think I've figured it out now. Unschool 23:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Please tell me when I have to contest the speedy deletion of the page which I created today. I ame Shears (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I tagged it for deletion because the article appears to be copies (with the occasional word change) from a government website that is not licensed to share material on Wikipedia. Therefore, the article is a copyright violation, and there is no other content that would hold up as an article on its own without the copyrighted content. Singularity42 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I will try. I ame Shears (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you Please tell me the tool to find out the copyright text. I have recently find the copyright text in INS Visakhapatnam (D66) and deleted it. I think there may more copyright text. So please help me. I ame Shears (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

reload4j article

Indeed, reload4j is a fork of log4j 1.x. However, I suggest a standalone article as reload4j needs to have its own identity for reasons of trademark protection vis a vis the Apache Software Foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man thinking (talk • ;contribs) 17:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll reply on the talk page where the merge discussion has to happen. Singularity42 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Reload4j article

Given that many users need to find a migration path for log4j 1.x, reload4j will continue to evolve. The project is brand new. However, there is already an SLF4J module which supports it directly and other software projects have started adopting it. It has been only two days since its release! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man thinking (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you are discussing it here. This isn't the place to discuss article issues, such a suggested merge. You really need to join the discussion at the main article's talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not familiar with wikipedia etiquette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man thinking (talk • contribs) 18:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Basically, Wikipedia works on a consensus model. I have proposed the merger, but it will be a discussion on a community page (in this case, the article's talk page) that will lead determining what the consensus is. Singularity42 (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Help Creating an article

Singularity42,

I noticed that you left a message regarding an article that I had created and since you have more experience creating Wikipedia articles, I could really use your help editing the article before it gets deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolo Villegas (talk • contribs) 18:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

So I'm not sure I can help you fix the article, since I actually think it should be deleted as I don't think it meets Wikipedia's policies for an article. The subject of the article appears to have just been made up by a couple people, and it does not appear to have been cited by multiple, independent, reliable sourcess that supports the subject's notability. I have proposed the article for deletion ("PROD"). If that tag stays up for 7 days i.e. by January 19th), the article will automatically be deleted. If anyone, including yourself, disputes the reasoning I gave, that editor (including yourself) can remove my tag. If the tag is removed, either I or another editor could start a different deletion process known as Articles for Deletion ("AfD"), where there would be a seven day discussion and administrator would determine what the consensus is. Singularity42 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edits to userpage and compliance with Wikipedia standards and guidelines

Hi Singularity42, and thanks for your message to me. Am new to Wikipedia, and saw your message about my user page, though wasn't sure what about it might violate the guidelines. I did change to read less like an encylopedia article and more in first person, and added description of articles I am editing/have edited in Wikipedia, and did read the guildelines, but wasn't sure what the particular concerns were. All guidance appreciated, since as I said, am new.Wolfenyc (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)wolfenyc

Yeah, it originally read more as an article about you as a person rather than being connected with your role as a Wikipedia editor. It wasn't so bad that I felt any admin action was necessary, but I wanted to bring it your attention. WP:USERBIO is the policy section that talks about not having an excessive personal bio on your user page that is unconnected with your role as a Wikipedian. The whole page (WP:User pages has a lot more info about what is and isn't allowed on a user page. Singularity42 (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back!

You've been away for a while, I think. Welcome back! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz! It has been a while - around 7 years I think! I left when my work became more demanding, but COVID has given me more time, and I kind of got drawn back in when I needed to edit an article I was reading, and well... yep, I'm back! Singularity42 (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

yay! Nice to have you back! —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Page should be maintained..check.

Not only does this page already have the required citations. I now have a reliable source. This is a biographical book of a person who took part in this riot earlier. But the same book is trustworthy. Make it the main page. [1]..J.k.r0012 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The main issue I had identified was that most of the details added were based on referencing a source that is an auto-biographical account by one participant, and appeared to potentially have some WP:NPOV issues. It was not clear the details in the article were referenced by the other sources. In addition, the article overall needed cleanup, as it was not written very well and needed to be sorted out as a draft first. If you think those issues have been addressed, follow the instructions at the top of the draft to request it be reviewed, and it will be added to the list. Singularity42 (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Mohanmala Gohain

About the moamoria rebellion section of Mohanmala Gohain wiki. Let me clarify that most of the things written in that section are from tungkhungia buranji by S.k bhuyan page no 63-67. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonardondishant (talk • contribs) 13:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's kind of the whole point. I'm not saying you aren't trying to be secret about it. But it doesn't change the fact that you can't copy copyrighted material into Wikipedia. Singularity42 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2022 (U

Ok sir I should've read it earlier sorry for the trouble...I am totally new to this thing still not justifiable... ask for forgiveness and hope that you can correct me when needed

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

--Blablubbs (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Singularity42. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 01:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Dabon Dambazau.

Hello . I appreciate that you recently moved my article with the name above to draft from main article space, although it was intially proposed for deletion you decided to move it to draft to give me a chance to develop it, and that I did and submitted it for approval but the approval was rejected citing that the article sources are not reliable. So in essence I'm talking to you to ask you to please take a look at it again and advise me appropriately on what next to do. Thanks. Baaballiyo (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I know other editors focus on reviewing AFC submissions, whereas my focus is on other areas of Wikipedia. Another editor felt that a lot of the content was not supported by reliable sources (either because there are insufficient sources, or a concern that the sources were not sufficiently reliable). I would review WP:Reliable sources and follow up with the editor who thought the sources were not reliable if you disagree. Singularity42 (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The secret behind /64 IPv6 "rangeblocks"

Hi Singularity42, WP:/64 may be interesting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That is super helpful! Thanks very much. Singularity42 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I need your help

In an ANI rport you asked me to revert if needed, but as i am not autoconfirmed what can i do to stop the disruptive edits. No editors are paying heed to stop all these disruptive edits. Please guide me what can i do. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baidy540 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Any editor - registered or unregistered, autoconfirmed or not, can revert another editor's edits. Just edit the article and remove the bold addition you are disputing and explain why in the edit summary. There are easier ways to revert a recent addition, but that's the most basic way. The only type of article you can't is if the page is protected at a level that prevents certain types of editors, in which case you request the change on the article's talk page. Remember to not WP:Edit war. Remember to explain why you are making the change in the edit summary. If it is restored back, take it to a talk page discussion to discuss the change. Singularity42 (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Singularity42,

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

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

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 814 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 859 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

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

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

About copyright

Previously, I edited existing texts on Wikipedia, but you deleted them, referring to the fact that I violate copyright. But since I am a representative of the organization that owns those texts, I have received from them copyright permission to use their texts on Wikipedia. Therefore, I wanted to ask what I need to provide you so that you can restore the texts that were edited? My old nickname is Upravlenieturizma13 Turkupt13 (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to read through this page (Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials) and then either clearly make it clear on the webiste that the text is licensed with a Creative Commons license, or follow the instructions at WP:DONATETEXT. Once that it done, if the Wikipeda page was deleted, you can request it to be undeleted at WP:REFUND. Singularity42 (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Singularity42,

Backlog status

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

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

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

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

Backlog drive

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

TIP – New school articles

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

Misc

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

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 9661 articles, as of 04:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

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

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

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

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

FYI

I am of the same opinion regarding First Class Female Attendant Xin. I have sent a few to draft from the same editor. I left that one at NPP to see if any other editor might have an opinion. So thank you. Bruxton (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Singularity42,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Singularity42,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

1974 Ethiopian coup d'état

Thank you for moving the page in my sandbox. I want to notice you that there is template error in the Ethiopian Civil War#History#Ethiopian Revolution section. Can you revert to previous state please? The Supermind (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It is very bad

By the time you got to my page, you deleted both of the two pages I made. Rest assured that I will tag your pages according to Wikipedia rules. Thanks.علی گیتور (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not delete your pages. I tagged them for an administrator to review as they appear to meet the speedy deletion criteria of WP:A7. If a reviewing administrator agrees with my assessment, they will delete the pages. You can contest the deletion by saying why they don't meet WP:A7 by explaining why on the articles' talk pages. Calling my actions "bad" or threatening retalitory measures against me isn't how to be constructive on Wikipedia.

To explain further, there were no credible claims of why the subject of either article is important, let alone notable. Pretty much all the references are non-independent pages by the companies themselves or press releases / advertisements from the companies. Singularity42 (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

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

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

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Singularity42,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Singularity42,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Singularity42:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2600 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)