User talk:RPSkokie

Hi RPSkokie! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you tell more about the notibility? It is a notable open-source project on GitHub. Zhouermao (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RPSkokie! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Rosiestep (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hi, René Orellana Halkyer he is a politician from my country he currently has an important position, I need more information? Dquint25 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm looking for more information in local newspapers Dquint25 (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] HELLO DONT DELETE THE ARTICLE SINCE ITS IMPORTANT ONE AND WILL GIVE MORE ACCURATE INFO ABOUT CELEBRTITY OF PAKISTAN.. Hirahibowiki (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Bekal Airport, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My 1st article so cooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool RPSkokie (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The CIO source is good. Appears to be a newspaper/magazine with an editor and an editorial process. Need a couple more sources like that. Business websites on their own are not a WP:GNG passing source since they are WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Books or academic journal articles would also work.

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Containerization (computing) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Containerization (computing), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novem Linguae. I edited the draft further. Does it look OK now? RPSkokie (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Containerization (computing), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zoozaz1 talk 17:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This university does not exist and may never exist. As such, significant coverage is not likely and all the sources refer to one government decision. Once the bill becomes an act and the university starts operation, this will be more likely.

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sindhu Central University and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sindhu Central University, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Muhandes (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sakar Sar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Ma Mahamaya Airport, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pahunkat (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  

Mz7 (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RPSkokie (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love to participate. But not yet ready to join as a coordinator. RPSkokie (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Intas Pharmaceuticals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durham. 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) 06:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Fore School of Management. Thanks! Hatchens (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fore School of Management, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Akevsharma (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello reviewer, Thank for reviewing my article, but I have decided to get it reviewed again as, for example, if an article on a brand of cars talks about the vehicles under it, it would only mention the main features, history, etc and not about the whole thing. It also mentions the “main article” for the particular vehicle, which allows readers to view the full description. Hope you understand !!! Marvelcanon1 (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I was meaning to say that it only mentions is features, and not it’s history, etc Marvelcanon1 (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RPSkokie, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Guitar manufacturing companies of China indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 15:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This category page was created for the test. Will not contest the speedy deletion. RPSkokie (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding your post at COIN, you may want to read this policy. --SVTCobra 11:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops Sorry for posting personal information. Removing it. Thank you User:SVTCobra. RPSkokie (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might have spooked you by mentioning the oversight committee in COIN, but it's really a run-of-the-mill thing. You did the right thing by removing the text and throughout the COIN thread up until this point you have acted in good faith. I appreciate you bringing up the issue at COIN for it to be addressed with, and hope this cute lil' cat will help you feel the mistake isn't that big, after all.

Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe. Thank you for the help. I am speechless. (I) need to go long way... to become a good editor. RPSkokie (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The way there is paved with good intentions, WP:AGF, and a willingness to both admit to and learn from mistakes. From what I see you're certainly on that path and I hope you're not discouraged now. I understand the talk/wikipedia sections can be quite stressful to someone that is new and mostly edits within mainspace. You can always come to my talk page or ping me if you have any questions :). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RPSkokie, I just want to make sure that you have requested oversight. It would look best for you if you do it before someone else does. If you are unsure about how, see WP:RFO. Happy New Year! --SVTCobra 13:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let me check with WP:RFO then. RPSkokie (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SVTCobra request raised with oversight team. But I didnt include Ptrnext in it based on your comment at COIN noticeboard. RPSkokie (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know I have a good friend in you. Thank you. RPSkokie (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle

The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter

Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged. On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue. Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion. The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7. The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed. The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125. The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members New Members KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December) PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December) Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December) Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921. Closed Discussions Featured Article assessment Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Good Article assessment HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed as not promoted on 30 December 2021 William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 22 December 2021 Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 4 December 2021 Deletion Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion) – Closed as delete and redirect on 30 December 2021 Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed as keep on 25 December 2021 Requested moves Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip → Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash → Avensa Flight 007 (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) – Withdrawn on 28 December 2021	Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY. Aviation pages by quality Quality Total FA 142 FL 15 A 56 GA 505 B 4,573 C 11,878 Start 15,082 Stub 18,754 List 2,539 Category 11,638 Disambig 653 File 2,713 Portal 629 Project 89 Redirect 1,518 Template 2,489 NA 66 Assessed 73,339 Unassessed 1 Total 73,340 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 250,702 Ω = 4.93
New/Ongoing Discussions Featured Article review D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021 A-class Article assessment Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020 List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010 Good Article assessment Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021 Merger proposals List of astronauts by name → List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of cosmonauts → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of space travelers by name → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 Holidays Czech Airlines → Czech Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 June 2021 Bendix Aviation → Bendix Corporation (discussion) – Since 30 May 2021 Airport Movement Area Safety System → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 29 May 2021 ASDE-X → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 28 May 2021 Splitting proposals Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021 2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021 List of military aircraft of the United States (discussion) – Since 16 August 2021 Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019 Deletion List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021 Requested moves Hot-air balloon → Hot air balloon (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 TWA Flight 800 → TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion) – Since 27 December 2021 Dynamic Airways Flight 405 → Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 CommutAir Flight 4281 → CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Thai Airways → Thai Airways International (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Thai Airways fleet → Thai Airways International fleet (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 List of Thai Airways destinations → List of Thai Airways International destinations (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Did you know Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021 Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021 On The Main Page Did you know... ... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list. Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if my word is too harsh but I am very disappointed as I am not promoting Pixelfed. I use several sources to make this article since there is not lots of sources discussing Pixelfed yet. I wish you understand those facts. Thank you. Bertverse (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay. I can understand your frustration. May I suggest you to have a word with User:A._C._Santacruz. She always helps me, she might help you too. RPSkokie (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping RPSkokie. I have added some comments on the draft talk page. I hope they're helpful to you Bertverse and you stick around. We always need more editors helping to improve our coverage of FOSS. For further drafts, I'd also recommend you ask at the relevant wikiprojects (e.g. WikiProject Software) before submitting the draft for approval as they'll gladly help you improve it. Remember that draft approval reviewers are assessing the content, and not you, so if you're feeling offended or down from the criticism just take a day off and come back to it later :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my unprofessional attitude. I would like to ask for help at WikiProject Software but since I am a newbie here, I do not know how to address to them. 😅 Bertverse (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll move this to your talk page, Bertverse. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't feel to bad, Bertverse. We've all been excited newbies at some point! Thankfully, I don't bite newcomers :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:A._C._Santacruz for the assistance and I feel shameful for my words to User:RPSkokie. I wish he/she wants to forgive me. Bertverse (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already forgiven. God bless you always. RPSkokie (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RP Sokokie

This is cricfandream here and I work in the online marketing team for Bajaj Allianz General Insurance. We have noticed that a few weeks back you have directed our Wiki page to Bajaj Finserv. Although we come under the same parent company, we are different from bajaj finserv and have a proper license to sell Insurance products apart from life to our customers. Since the two companies are different, we would request you to kindly remove this redirection and re instate our original page. We can discuss this if you want. Awaiting your reply

-Ciricfandream — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricfandream (talk • contribs) 13:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cricfandream thanks for telling this. please read this WP:COIEDIT and declare your association WP:DISCLOSE at your talk page. I strongly discourage you from editing affected Bajaj articles directly, and if you want any changes to be made please propose those on article talk page(s) Talk:Bajaj Finserv instead. RPSkokie (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inox Air Products, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Akevsharma (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May you please provide more feedback on the message you left on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rapita_Systems. I keep getting the same message but I don't know what it means. I've added more references and from trusted sources such as journals but they seem not be enough. Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technical-writer-2020 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ayeshairshad (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sabaq Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and this is my very first page. I tried to add as many citations and possible but somehow there are gaps. Can you please guide me or help me to get my first page published? I will gain some experience and this wont happen in my next articles.

I will be grateful.

Ayeshairshad (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Curve516 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Basis Global Technologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I hope you're well. I am currently drafting this article -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Basis_Global_Technologies.

First, full disclosure, I am a paid employee of the organization that is the subject of the article, and this is disclosed in my profile.

You left a comment saying it was not accepted and the reasons were because (1) it read like an advertisement and that (2) it did not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Regarding reason #1, I have seen articles of other companies in our peer set, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pubmatic, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenX_(company), and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteo, that have similar type of language to describe their business. I acknowledge that their general description of their business up top is much shorter that my article. Do you have guidance on what parts of the language I use that is not acceptable?

Regarding reason #2, I have cited all of the subject's major events and claims via 57 articles from notable industry media outlets. These are trade outlets and so are generally more familiar in the advertising industry. However, they are media outlets that typically garner thousands of unique viewers each month. In comparison to the other companies I mentioned above that have published wikipedia pages, many of the outlets from which I have cited in my entry are the same. Some of the citations I include are from fairly mainstream outlets such as Fortune, Forbes, Bloomberg, and Crain's Chicago Business. Do you have guidance on what types of sources I need beyond the business and trade media outlets that are used for the entry?

Thanks for reviewing.

Curve516 (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• AlexandraN01 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:BuildSoft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, RPSkokie I am writing concerning your rejection of my review of the draft page for BuildSoft. It appears as if you have not thoroughly checked the new independent, reputable 3rd party references I have added. You have chosen almost the same reason for rejection as the person before you. I believe I have respected the rules to be neutral and to add independent, notable, reputable references to show the verifiability and notability of the BuildSoft subject. I have not seen pertinent comments on text or references from your side to understand why you rejected the page. Can you please let me know the exact places in the page where I do not conform to the rules? Thank you and kind regards, Alexandra AlexandraN01 (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexandraN01 WP:ROUTINE, routine news coverage as announcements are not a sufficient basis for an article. RPSkokie (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RPSkokie, Greetings! I am writing concerning your rejection of my review of the draft page for Shubhra_Mohanty. Please forgive my persistence, but I have read up the WP:GNG, and I truly have reason to believe that I have respected the rules to be neutral and to add independent, notable, reputable references to show the verifiability and notability of the subject. The several references in the article presently shows significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (quoting from your comment).

• As many as 4 verifiable live references from The_Economic_Times, Business_Standard, Outlook_(Indian_magazine) and Zee Business (operated by Zee_Media_Corporation#Current_channels) (All of which India's leading and very respectable print/online news agencies). In line with WP:GNG, these are indeed "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
• As many as 2 verifiable live references from Tofler India (see https://www.tofler.in/about) and Outstanding Speakers Bureau (see Raheel_Khursheed) (also see https://outstandingspeakersbureau.in/). In line with WP:GNG, these are indeed "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Both of these sources are heavily referenced in several other articles in Wikipedia.
• As many as 4 verifiable live references from "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject", in line with WP:GNG, viz., Mid-Day, Daily News & Analysis (DNA) - run by Zee_News, Yahoo!_News.

Can you please let me know the exact places in the page where I do not conform to the rules? Just need to understand.

Moreover, with deep humbleness, I would like to cite some examples: The following articles are either supported by similar, fewer in number, or comparitively ill-referenced than Draft:Shubhra_Mohanty Article - that you have declined. Please help me understand, if Draft:Shubhra_Mohanty doesn't deserve a place in Wikipedia, how can articles like the following deserve to have a place in the Wikipedia?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attin_Bhalla
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annelies_Strba
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filip_Antonijevi%C4%87
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basanta_Choudhury
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Milosavljevi%C4%87_(footballer,_born_2000)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raheel_Khursheed
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Baswani
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Abraham_Cheulkar
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Bhatt
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anand_Babu
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibhas_Chakraborty
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Chandrababu
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Webster-Cyriaque
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_J%C3%B8nsson

I can cite a several more examples, but I am sure I have been able to express my point.

NOTE: I have nothing personal against these above-mentioned articles. I am just saying - if these can be published part of Wikipedia, why not Shubhra Mohanty? Would appreciate an early response and suitable action. --Wadlin13 (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wadlin13 WP:PROMO, Seek help at WP:TEA. RPSkokie (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hacker_Noon

Hello there,

HackerNoon has had articles written either about them in detail – or with notable mentions- in secondary, independent, reliable sources since 2018.

These sources include:

The Guardian' (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/21/extreme-biohacking-tech-guru-who-spent-250000-trying-to-live-for-ever-serge-faguet),

Wired (https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-let-users-own-the-tech-companies-they-help-build/ and https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-best-place-internet/),

ReadWrite (https://readwrite.com/2019/07/17/hacker-noon-rips-out-mediums-software-replaces-it-with-their-own/)

, and more (linked below). HackerNoon does not only meet the basic criteria of Wikipedia notability but surpasses it.

Further to this, HackerNoon is frequently linked to as a notable resource in publications like:

Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2021/11/14/why-you-absolutely-must-invest-in-the-metaverse/?sh=7de304083a9b)

Harvard Law Review text(https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Harvard_Law_Review_Volume_131_Number_6_A/E6VUDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hackernoon+harvard&pg=PT241&printsec=frontcover),

a plethora of published books on

Google Books Search(https://www.google.com/search?q=hackernoon&client=safari&biw=1095&bih=535&tbm=bks&ei=JdsZYozSENnO0PEPt-CTQA&ved=0ahUKEwjM-JXB8Jz2AhVZJzQIHTfwBAgQ4dUDCAg&uact=5&oq=hackernoon&gs_lcp=Cg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzEAMyBQgAEIAEOgcIABCABBAKUABYvQlgtgtoAHAAeACAAYABiAGCCZIBBDAuMTCYAQCgAQHAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-books),

and also by some of the top technology companies in the world as an educational resource.

Samples:

Microsoft(https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/gaming/azure/reference-architectures/analytics-in-editor-debugging) links to here: https://hackernoon.com/reliable-event-processing-in-azure-functions-37054dc2d0fc

IBM(https://www.ibm.com/in-en/topics/computer-vision) links to here: https://hackernoon.com/a-brief-history-of-computer-vision-and-convolutional-neural-networks-8fe8aacc79f3

Google Cloud (https://cloud.google.com/functions) links to here: https://hackernoon.com/get-the-code-for-the-video-intelligence-api-demo-794e7675effe

“Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added”

On what grounds should additional sources be added?

According to your own policies(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability): “There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.” This post not only meets that but surpasses it.

Holding this post to standards unreasonably higher than seemingly the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles seems to be an act of bad faith.

This post is very comparable to companies of a similar size:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoinDesk;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markup and the language isn’t far off from what appears in a company from your featured articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems

“Reads like an advert”

I was previously advised to simply summarize what sources have said about the Company by a senior editor. I have done this. The post is tastefully sized and comparable to approved Wikipedia pages of companies of a similar size.

If there is a phrase(s) that needs to be changed, the iteration effort is likely to be minimal. It’s unlikely to be outside the scope of suggestions a reviewer can make. Feel free to tweak it.

In what way are the below sources not adequate for their intended purpose? Please be specific. I’m quite happy to clarify in detail how they qualify.

1.Insider, Bitcoin (2018-12-08). "Medium Killed Hacker Noon's Revenue: WTF?". Bitcoin Insider. Retrieved 2021-11-25. (https://www.bitcoininsider.org/article/50822/medium-killed-hacker-noons-revenue-wtf)

2.Anderson, Brad (2019-07-17). "Hacker Noon Rips Out Medium's Software, Replaces it With Their Own". ReadWrite. Retrieved 2021-11-25. (https://readwrite.com/2019/07/17/hacker-noon-rips-out-mediums-software-replaces-it-with-their-own/)

3.Stevens, Robert (2020-01-22). "Hacker Noon, a popular tech site, goes on the blockchain". Decrypt. Retrieved 2021-11-25. (https://decrypt.co/17341/hacker-noon-a-popular-tech-site-goes-on-the-blockchain)

4.Merritt, John (2020-11-13). "USC startup Behavioral Signals voted innovative company of the year in AI". USC Stevens Center for Innovation. Retrieved 2021-11-25. (https://stevens.usc.edu/startups-in-the-news/usc-startup-behavioral-signals-voted-innovative-company-of-the-year-in-ai/)

5. Cooke, Richard (2020-02-17). "Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet". Wired ( Behind Paywall). Archived from the original on 2021-01-10. Retrieved 2021-11-24. ( https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-best-place-internet/)

6. Marsh, Stefanie (2018-09-21). "Extreme biohacking: the tech guru who spent $250,000 trying to live for ever". the Guardian. Retrieved 2021-07-19. ( https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/21/extreme-biohacking-tech-guru-who-spent-250000-trying-to-live-for-ever-serge-faguet)

Which sources do you find to not be independent of the subject?

The vast majority of the sources linked are indeed independent from the Company team. If you don’t like a particular source you, as an editor, should probably be open to simply removing it from the list. I included extra to showcase how many people recognize this Company around the internet.

Some sources — especially regarding funding— are simply used to showcase a statement of fact. I have seen this done on Wikipedia time and time again.

(Actually, the idea to exclude such things in the honor of accuracy seems questionable. You can see how this stipulation impacts pages like SpaceX – where instead of linking to the specs on their company website, misinformed ‘valid’ external sources are linked to leading to lack of accurate technical information.)

Furthermore, it is well within the interest of Wikipedia to note publicly sourced donations/investments for companies. In honor of public transparency. Especially if these funding campaigns were mentioned by multiple outlets. Again, this information has been provided.

I have followed your policies, I have operated in an honest fashion, I'm very surprised with the way my post was treated.

Thank you kindly, Ellen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escvca (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple past deletions. WP:CITEKILL. Seek help at WP:TEA. RPSkokie (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, this response seems very inconsistent. You rejected the post inappropriately based on ‘notability grounds’ and asked for more sources. Now you are listing entirely different reasonings, one of which is ‘WP:CITEKILL’ which is the exact opposite of your initial request, to "provide more sources."

You further have failed to provide adequate sources to back up the , ‘multiple deletions’ rationale as being a valid one for rejecting a post.

I would like to encourage you to review the conduct required within your own organization: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines) Your conduct seems somewhat inconsistent with what is advised and required within Wikipedia’s own standards. Especially when it comes to editor conduct.

Thanks, Ellen. Escvca (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick review of this draft article on ETR, RPSKokie! As someone who was quite active as a Wikipedia editor a decade ago (but with a username I cannot log in to anymore, hence the new username), I understand and appreciate the time you put into improving the quality of Wikipedia. I've made some significant changes to the article and respectfully offer a rationale for those changes below, and I request your re-review of the article when you are able.

As requested, I added several citations/references to support the content of the article, including links to international media coverage mentioning ETR, academic papers that cite ETR research, an NGO report citing ETR data, and major investor blogs citing ETR data. While the mentions of ETR and its survey data are often brief in these many references, the citations are substantive and not in passing. Many of the articles referenced are about, say, work-from-home trends brought on by the pandemic, and then ETR (and sometimes another one or two reputable research and advisory firms like Gartner) are cited early in the article as a way to establish in objective terms that the work-from-home trend is indeed happening and how pervasive it is. Then the rest of the article expounds on that. The role of market research firms like ETR is to provide this raw, scientific data to industry analysts, investors, journalists, policymakers, and academics so they may build their own arguments and commentary from that foundation of facts. Any media article that would make excessive mention of a particular research firm's findings would be suspect, actually, making the media outlet seem like a paid partner of the research firm.

As for noteworthiness, I'm unsure what constitutes enough references, because when I look at other marketing research and polling firms with Wikipedia entries I see a wide range in quality and quantity of references. From this list of marketing research firms, for instance, you have some fairly robust pages like those from (rather undisputedly the most noteworthy research and advisory firm in IT) Gartner with 17 references to a mix of major and minor sources, where they are often also mentioned briefly (though not "in passing" as I argue above). But then you have the likes of Decision Analyst that, despite being around for 44 years and with 150 employees, has one minor mention in one small local newspaper as a reference. And 12-yr-old Canadian polling firm Abacus Data with just five references, all of them to now-dead URLs. The best solution here, of course, is just to bring the quality up for all of these firms, but in the meantime, it seems an uneven set of standards to bar a firm like ETR from getting to have a page.

Finally, another editor came in right away and renamed the article from "ETR (Enterprise Technology Research)" to just "Enterprise Technology Research." The accurate name of the company is just "ETR," but given there are several uses of ETR on Wikipedia, I added the parenthetical to its former name. It would not be accurate to have the ETR entry exist only as "Enterprise Technology Research," and so I also would like that reverted back to the "ETR (Enterprise Technology Research)" format or something similar if possible. But I don't know how to undo that edit. Shall I talk to that editor separately or is that a fix you can do for me as well?

Thank you and I look forward to your reply! Darenbrabham (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darenbrabham (talk • contribs) 17:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fore School of Management, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fore School of Management until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Numberguy6 was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Apache Hop and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Apache Hop, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Numberguy6 (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Allthefacts007 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Robert Potter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello

I am following up on a recent article that has been submitted regarding Robert Potter. The previous reviewer (Cabrils) advised that the article appeared to align with Wiki policies but that the references needed to be updated, which we did. The references we included are all reputable news organisations who verify the statements made in the document. I note that there are other wiki entries that also rely almost entirely on news articles as references (e.g. Vicki Xu). Further, we would be grateful for a specific example where you believe the tone is not neutral so we can fix it.

Allthefacts007 (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Koenig Institute 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/Koenig Institute 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.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RPSkokie! Your additions to Ratna Chuli have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa I am sorry. It was really irresponsible of me to not check first if it was subject to copyright. RPSkokie (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright until proven otherwise. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your input to Zapatilla (mountain). There just seemed something a bit strange about it to me, but it now looks fine. My attention was drawn to it by an editor who is currently working on identifying vast numbers of unsourced stubs not hitherto labelled as such, which then turn up in Category:Stubs which I check for stub-sorting. It has led me down quite a few rabbit-holes when something catches my attention as interesting or odd - but this was my first trip to Aragonese wiki. PamD 16:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD That is a difficult task. Please tell me about anything related to geographies, such as mountains, lakes, and topographical features. I will gladly assist you. RPSkokie (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Beccaynr. I noticed that you recently removed content from Byju Raveendran without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Beccaynr (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Beccaynr. I noticed that you recently removed content from Divya Gokulnath without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Beccaynr (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr I have a simple question; kindly assist me with my comprehension. Given that there is a concern with inheriting notability or sharing notability, how useful is it to list the combined family wealth on an individual's page? RPSkokie (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RPSkokie, thank you for following up - both subjects are in the billionaires category, and my understanding from the sources is that the only way to verify this is by including content about their shared net worth, because this is the only way their net worth is reported. Beccaynr (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr Then, it is preferable to leave it unaltered until each person's net worth is disclosed by reputable sources. RPSkokie (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the currently available source also helps support their WP:BASIC notability, because if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and it is not a trivial mention about the jointly-owned asset. Based on the sources in the articles, concerns about inherited notability do not appear to apply here, including because each person shares the asset.

It also seems unlikely that a jointly-owned business will produce individual net worths, which is another reason why including the reliable information that is available about their jointly-owned asset seems best. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr Thanks for logical justification. I just updated the awards section and deleted non-notable ones. Please correct me if I made any errors. RPSkokie (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, and those deletions look good to me - I did a quick search for secondary sources for the awards and did not find any, or any other indications of notability. Beccaynr (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr FYI requested semi protection for Byju Raveendran's page. RPSkokie (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enquiry: Hi, I had revised my draft and submitted it last month, but it still hasn’t been reviewed. I want to know how long should I wait before someone review my latest draft. Zxcvbnm123411 (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Zxcvbnm123411[reply]

• Niccologaleazzo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Digital Matters Publishing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there, I'm really sorry to bother but I'm requesting information about the decline of the page for Digital Matters Publishing. I fully understand that there isn't ton of content about the company, they started it 2 years ago but started to properly work in December, I've tried to put some reference in, description etc. but I'm kinda new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure about what I should add to get this page approved. Can you pinpoint suggestions on how to improve the submission please? I hope you will be able to help ^_^

Niccologaleazzo (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Niccologaleazzo WP:TEA can provide assistance. RPSkokie (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you are going well. As you have declined a draft article 3 months ago and added some reasons there. I have worked on it and removed all the advert and irrelevant content from Draft:The Chenab Times . I am working on number of Drafts/Articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chenab Valley and the above draft is also related to same. Your precious suggestions for articles will improve my knowledge more.

Thank You. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at INS Udaygiri (2022) instead.

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:INS Udaygiri (2022) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:INS Udaygiri (2022), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hatchens (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:INS Udaygiri (2022). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Draft:INS Udaygiri (2022) into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided the attribution in this case. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers thank you so much for your assistance. Nonetheless, I have one question: how do we grant credit or attribute when content is translated from one language wiki to another? RPSkokie (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! That's done in exactly the same way – the minimum is to attribute the source in your edit summary (something like "expand using content translated from the fr.wp page"), and that's probably sufficient for a few sentences. If you've translated a big chunk of material in a number of edits it's probably better to provide attribution using {{copied}}. If you have questions about this just ask away, I'll answer if I can. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of translating Wikipedia pages on mountain peaks from German to English. I was unfamiliar with how to attribute, so I began editing the talk pages — Talk:La Yongma Ri. Will this be adequate? RPSkokie (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's fine. But I forgot to mention {{translated page}} – sorry about that! It's probably the best choice in such circumstances – it's flexible and covers a wide range of situations. I suggest using it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hope you're doing well. I was wondering how was the article read like an advertisement. Despite that I have rewritten, rephrase and removed some I suspected of making it that way. Looking forward to your reply. Pang (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for reviewing my draft, but I wonder why you think my article is like an advertisement? In fact, I submitted this draft several times before with the same content, the reviewers did not consider my article to be an advertisement, but only suggested me to revise the references, because my article describe historical facts.

Regarding the references in the latest draft you reviewed, according to Wikipedia’s editorial rules, a self-published work can be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. So I added two self-published works. And I also added some pieces of news from well-known media which describing what happened from a third-party perspective, I think these sources can prove notability, because I believe they meet the requirements of independent, multiple and reliable sources.

Looking forward to your reply. Zxcvbnm123411 (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Zxcvbnm123411[reply]

I do not agree with accusations. I made this translation because my friend's husband is Polish- Brazilian, not as an advertisement... I judge UR accusation of a new user as highly unethical and unmoral.

PONGLISZ (talk)

I saw that you rejected my submission of Draft:Celsius_Network. I just added more sources; I have included many sources written over a period of time from well-known mainstream outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. The company is the subject of the top story in financial news today and is attracting significant media attention. Please take a look again and if you have specific suggestions for improvement please let me know. JournalismResearch (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RPSkokie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Warren Zeiders, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RPSkokie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cryogenic ISO container, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Nano-satellite Atmospheric Chemistry Hyperspectral Observation System. Thanks! Gusfriend (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Joint All-Domain Command and Control. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nano-satellite Atmospheric Chemistry Hyperspectral Observation System, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Hello, RPSkokie. This is Brakshit Draft:Govind Dholakia, a page i am trying to create since long, Due to reference they reject or finding wrong impression past or something else. so if you would Guide me through. Its pretty much in line and much neutral.

Thank you for your help in advance

Please stop repeatedly pinging me on multiple pages. It is extremely annoying. When making copyedits to your posts on peoples talkpages, please use the "minor edit" feature to avoid pinging them repeatedly. My response that got caught in an edit conflict earlier is as follows:

That's fine, I moved the page about the landslide because it was originally titled "Tsergo Ri" which was obviously not appropriate. Thanks for the work creating the article! Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Deepankarborokb (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ravish Naresh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi RPSkokie,

I recently wrote an article on Mr. Ravish Naresh, which got rejected. I wanted to create a bio for one of the reputed startup founders in India. I had taken notes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binny_Bansal on how to format and present the content accordingly.

I am not sure I find the article as an advertisement. Can you please put out the pointers which have come out as it is? This will help me to edit the article.

Regards, Deepankar

Deepankarborokb (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Any prominent physician or medical academic/professional in Sri Lanka can verify Prof Weerasooriya's credentials. Prof Weerasooriya was a former Dean of the University of Ruhuna (Faculty of Medicine), and also a Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) - Kotelawala Defence University.

Additionally, he pioneered in Sri Lanka, the first of many, including an Andrology Clinic, Sperm Bank, and National IVF Lab. As shown by his several published research papers and links (I cited 63 links as references, including news articles and international & local publications examples - ResearchGate, PubMed, Asian Journal of Andrology, Springer Nature, The Ceylon Medical Journal, ASIAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOGNOSY, Informa UK Limited).

One of his colleagues was Susirith Mendis, and he worked with G. P. Samarawickrama.

Also, at the Kotelawala Defence University, the other Vice Chancellors are also included on Wikipedia, examples being ,Major General Milinda Peiris RWP RSP VSV,and Major General Sumith Balasuriya, USP, ndc, IG, SLA.

Kindly let me know, as to how this article to fall short, even with the 63 citations. Since I have seen plenty of articles with less citations, and especially not in the field of science and medicine.

Thank you, cheers. User:311DRT (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC) Username was changed** Hi, I didn't receive a reply from you. User:311DRT (talk)[reply]

The page Adani Wilmar has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I did not create that page. Instead, it was I who moved it to draft. RPSkokie (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Raydann (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Raydann Thank you. Edit summaries are something that I include in the majority of my revisions. However, it's possible that I overlooked it in a number of different pages and drafts. I will attempt to take a more proactive role and ensure that the essential summaries are always added. RPSkokie (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Waterfalls in India has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Robby (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby I concur with your rationale. RPSkokie (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RPSkokie,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ghazal Alagh for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Ghazal Alagh to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 That page was not created by me. On the other hand, I was the one who moved it to the draftspace. RPSkokie (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ah ok. If you remember, please add the speedy deletion tag to the redirect after you move an article to draftspace. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will begin doing that from now on. Just getting started with CSD. RPSkokie (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Medanta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Profit.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi RPSkokie

recently I submit article on wikipedia "Gabbar Sangrur". every fact is truth and fine. he is a big name of punjabi film industry. I don't know someone nominated the article for deletion. please help/guide me. how can I continue that article. thanks

regards vikash VikasKinha (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VikasKinha I lack expertise regarding actors and filmmakers. Why not visit the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers and pose a question? RPSkokie (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear project member, This message is being sent out to encourage new ideas and feedback on those proposed in regard to the colors debate for WikiProject Weather. For those who are unaware of what's been happening over the last year, I will give a brief summary. We have been discussing proposed changes to the colors of the dots on tropical cyclone maps and templates and infoboxes across the entire weather project in order to solve issues related to the limited contrast between colors for both normal vision as well as the various types of color blindness (MOS:ACCESS). We had partially implemented a proposal earlier this year, however, it was objected to by a number of people and additional issues were presented that made it evident this wasn't the optimal solution. We tried to come up with other solutions to address the issues related to color contrast, however, none of them gained traction and no consensus was generated.

We need your help and I encourage you to propose your own scale and give feedback on those already listed. Keep in mind that we are NOT making a decision on any individual proposal at this time. We are simply allowing people to make proposals and cultivate them given feedback from other project members. Please visit our project page for additional details. The proposal phase will close no later than December 31st at 23:59 UTC. Noah^Talk 03:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Seasons greetings!
	Wishing you joyous holiday spirits, RPSkokie! and best wishes for the New Year

Beccaynr (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr Warm Wishes for the Merriest Season RPSkokie (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you just removed an award (ASU + GSV Summit 2019 Power of Women Award) from Divya Gokulnath page. You should also remove from here: Cindy Mi. Gaargi Puri (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaargi Puri The award you mentioned is not noteworthy in and of itself. You can refer to this essay article under the heading Notability (awards and medals). RPSkokie (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted all my edits. It seems like you want to show me that you are an old editor and you are capable to do anything on Wikipedia. Isn't it vandalism? If (ASU + GSV Summit 2019 Power of Women Award) is non notable, then why you are not removing from here: Cindy Mi? Gaargi Puri (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaargi Puri Don't take it personally. By sharing some editorial and instructional advice on your talk page, I have tried to make you feel more welcome. But since you are depicting a confrontational behavior, I would suggest you WP:TEA for more help. RPSkokie (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to hurt you, RPSkokie. But I'm just curious as to whether Wikipedia's policy is uniform for all entries. Why is the (ASU + GSV Summit 2019 Power of Women Award) mentioned in Cindy Mi's article, as you indicated, it is unremarkable? I asked you again, but you didn't respond. Gaargi Puri (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaargi Puri WP:NCTest. RPSkokie (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCTest - This is the notability test for two different subjects, Isn't it? This is not the answer of my question? My question is not about the notability of an article. Here both the articles are notable but I am still trying to understand whether Wikipedia's policy is not same for adding the same entry on different articles. Gaargi Puri (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaargi Puri Wikipedia articles follow the same rules based on the articles' types. But it's best not to use parity arguments. That's how I see it. RPSkokie (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Vardyhero (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Retro World Expo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other than writing about the popularity of the event (which can be removed if you feel this crosses the line- I can see if this section may), can you elaborate on any other passages that read like an advertisement. I do not feel this is a fair comment as the rest is written largely as a 'list of history' and is fairly nondescript.

Vardyhero (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you claim at the talk page of Kataklik Kangri that you translated the article from German Wikipedia. But the article seriously contradicts German Wikipedia, transposing the locations of the summits. Also note that the article states both I and II have prominences of over 1500 metres, but this is not possible because they are connected by a high ridge that does not drop more than 700 metres below the height of wither summit. My opinion is that German Wikipedia is correct, but the sources are contradictory and I have not been able to uncover any conclusive proof. Viewfinder (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Viewfinder Thank you very much for pointing out this discrepancy. Even though I used the best source I could find (PeakVisor), I put in the wrong prominence values for Katalik Kangri II at first. I just corrected it. RPSkokie (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a better source than PeakVisor here but more sources support the current version. Maybe a dispute tag would be in order. Viewfinder (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I created the Katalik Kangri page, you can edit it as you see fit. I have faith in your editing skills. RPSkokie (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RPSkokie, I request you to review this page since this upcoming train has the sources of evidence that it's going to be launched on Feb 10 2023. I request you to direct this page to the main Wiki article. Hope to get some good response from your side. Thank you. Sameer2905 (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RPSkokie,

Hope you are doing well. Please review the article, Draft:Partha Sarathi Ray. I have added more relevant data to the page with valid trustworthy references. Kindly re-evaluate the article. Please let me know if any further improvement needed to move this page to main namespace.

Thanks in advance. :)

-Soumendrak (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RPSkokie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Billions Under Lockdown, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kapilbhardwajj (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Yogesh Bhardwaj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, first thanks for make Wikipedia for people that find all info in one place.

I need assistance because i want to publish article that not added there yet. This help lots of peoples that need to read and find good source of news and articles.

So can you please assist me how can i edit and publish me first article on Wikipedia.

Kapilbhardwajj (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RPSkokie. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Billions Under Lockdown".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RPSkokie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kalam-series engine, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a doubt, you had recently declined my article "Draft:Kendriya Vidyalaya No.3, Bhubaneswar" for not been supported by "reliable sources", in your words, what are "reliable sources" and their examples.

Second, how these articles "Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Bhubaneswar" and "Digital learning" have been accepted into "Wikipedia Article Space" which have one or very less citations to their facts which are being presented in their respective articles. Bhubaneswar2009 (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhubaneswar2009 It is advised to avoid using the parity argument. For a clearer understanding, I suggest referring to the Wikipedia guidelines WP:NSCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. These guidelines can provide you with more comprehensive information and clarity on the subject. If you encounter any difficulties, I kindly encourage you to seek assistance at WT:AFC. RPSkokie (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Evan0019 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:CGVerse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Wanted to follow up on which refs are problematic so I can correct them and also for which one of the four characteristics are the refs lacking: in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent? Bit confused there. Thanks Evan0019 (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Czello ^(music) 08:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fowzieh Khalili (1978).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by neutral encyclopedic tone? Swaroopb07 (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you let me why my sources are not suffice? I've added in-depth, reliable, secondary and strictly independent sources (ex. ref #1, 3, 4, 5, 8).

Just wanted to follow up on which refs are problematic so I can correct them and also for which one of the four characteristics are the refs lacking: in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent? Bit confused there.

Dl2593 (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you must have reviewed the Osprey Marsh Draft, and you left a comment:

• Comment: Does it possess Ramsar site status? Could not locate any mention or reference to it. RPSkokie (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not seem to find a Ramsar site status for this page. Here's my reference: Category:Ramsar sites in Canada

Anything I can do? WikiEditor743 (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditor743 Since it is not officially a Ramsar site, I would recommend that you concentrate on utilizing appropriate sources, following the guidelines provided in WP:SIGCOV and WP:INDY. Best of luck! RPSkokie (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RPSkokie. 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. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill thank you. RPSkokie (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RPSkokie,

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)[reply]

Thank you so much RPSkokie for reviewing my article on ‘Amitava Bhattacharya.’ I just wanted to inform that while writing the article I ensured to follow a neutral approach and I provided significant citations on each section. However if it still appears like an advertisement, I would be grateful if you could provide some guidance as to how do I improve and evade the sections where it appears more like an advertisement and not a wikipedia article. Contact Base (WB) (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RPSkokie, I revised this draft and addressed your decline-time comments about the need for more refs to establish notability. Some refs are paywalled (shouldn't be an obstacle per WP guidelines), but I wonder if reviewers check the WP Library which has some of them. Others can be found outside paywall by searching for the title. In any case, please LMK what else can be improved for the next review. Thx Igor Markov 09:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I hope you are doing well. I just wanted to ask about the reasons behind rejecting "Draft:UAE- orchestrated smear scandal in Europe". The article seems to meet Wikipedia's rules. It is not directed against any individual or entity. It states facts supported with reliable sources. Could you elaborate your action please. Is there any advice to publish the article again and avoid deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The free voice (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE. RPSkokie (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RPSkokie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Harnessing the Dragon's Fume, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RPSkokie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:K2: The Savage Mountain, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RPSkokie! Just a reminder that when you draftify an article, you should nominate the resulting redirect for R2 speedy deletion. You can automate that using this script. Thanks for your contributions! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remember to check for copyright violations before draftifying. In the case of Tissa Wijeratne, this was a pretty clear copyvio and should have been nominated for G12 speedy deletion instead. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Schminnte for a genuine help. RPSkokie (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RPSkokie,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited - GCC for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited - GCC to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

RPSkokie (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:RPSkokie! I see you were really fast to decline Draft:Disruption_Network_Lab without IMHO good arguments. I see this is outside of your primary focus as editor, while I work in the field and I am focused on NGOs.

I am interested in why you think this one does not deserve a Wikipedia page after almost 2 decades of existances, bunch of important media articles discussing their conferences and with prominent partners and guests involved. I understand that first draft was using a lot of text from web, but this one is not, so please either present precise arguments or pass on the judgement to people who are close to this field.

I would also hope you consider your mode of working in general that article was proposed by novice editor and declining articles without instructing them feels very unwelcoming and might even feel as hostility. As Wikipedia has declining number of editors and much of them report estrangment due to this kind of semi-automated interaction, I hope you would not be as hasty. As a person who is publicly out with BP1, IMHO you should be even more sensitive to potential negative feelings and frsutrations of newbies. No?

Kind regards --Zblace (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zblace NGOs also should adhere to the WP:NCORP guidelines. Additionally, they must meet the criteria outlined in WP:ORGCRIT, WP:ORGDEPTH, and WP:SIRS, which, as it stands now, they do not fully meet. I kindly request that you consider revising your draft and submitting it for another review. There are experienced reviewers available who can provide guidance. If you require expert assistance, please don't hesitate to post your query at WT:AFC. Your efforts to meet these guidelines will be greatly appreciated. RPSkokie (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RPSkokie you are doing the same thing again. Ignoring my request for specific and concrete feedback and throwing vague observations as it stands now, they do not fully meet. This is disrespectful of time and effort of others. If article not-fully meets all the criteria, then it should be given, which part exactly is problematic. Please respond with concrete, detailed and specific feedback. Thank you! -- Zblace (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zblace I want to extend my apologies if my previous message may have inadvertently caused any discomfort. Nonetheless, my earlier clarification appropriately directs you to the relevant guidelines that must be adhered to. To gain a clearer understanding, I would respectfully suggest visiting WT:AFC for further assistance. RPSkokie (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

• Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
• State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
• Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

firefly ( t · c ) 11:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I have read and understand the Terms of Use and the rules about disclosing paid edits.

I confirm that I have not received any compensation for my edits, and I want to assure you that I do not possess any conflicts of interest with the subjects I have written about. Since it's a CheckUser block, I would like to inform that there are multiple blocks against the IP address/IP range (dynamic) on which I am currently logged on and, it will expire on 01:10, 17 April 2026. As a result, my edits might easily be grouped with other problematic edits originating from users who are also using the same IP address. Its quite an unfortunate situation, I should have had opted for an IP block exemption. Therefore, I respectfully request a reconsideration of my account's reactivation after another check.

Being a diligent editor, I made an effort to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines and avoid editing pages which are remotely controversial. Furthermore, I am committed to heeding the administrator's concluding remarks concerning the unblocking request. RPSkokie (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good start, RPSkokie, but you'll have to make a formal unblock request for admins to be alerted to your statements. An unblock request will list this page in a category of requests that some admins regularly check while most may not have this page Watchlisted and may not even know that you were blocked and what the circumstances were. Unfortunately, due to proxies and our blocking bots which are very active, the master Block log is almost impossible to monitor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz thanks for help. I am making a formal request using UTRS. RPSkokie (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RPSkokie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I confirm that I have read and understand the Terms of Use and the rules about disclosing paid edits. Also I confirm that I have not received any compensation for my edits, and I want to assure you that I do not possess any conflicts of interest with the subjects I have written about. Since it's a CheckUser block, I would like to inform that there are multiple blocks against the IP address/IP range (dynamic) on which I am currently logged on and, it will expire on 01:10, 17 April 2026. As a result, my edits might easily be grouped with other problematic edits originating from users who are also using the same IP address. Its quite an unfortunate situation, I should have had opted for an IP block exemption. Therefore, I respectfully request a reconsideration of my account's reactivation after another check. Being a diligent editor, I made an effort to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines and avoid editing pages which are remotely controversial. Furthermore, I am committed to heeding the administrator's concluding remarks concerning the unblocking request. RPSkokie (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. As this is a block based on private evidence, per Wikipedia:Appealing a block § Other methods of appeal, please direct your appeal to the Arbitration Committee. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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)[reply]

Hello, RPSkokie. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "K2: The Savage Mountain".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RPSkokie,

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)[reply]

Hello RPSkokie:

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 2400 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]