User talk:SyntheticSystems

Hi SyntheticSystems! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Verrado High School does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! JC aka JtheKid15 ^{(Communications)} 21:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SyntheticSystems! Welcome to Wikipedia.

I left some comments on your DYK nomination of Verrado High School, and I'd like to make a few more that aren't DYK-related here.

I see this is your first article on Wikipedia. Given the topic, I imagine you are a Verrado student. (I was in high school here in AZ, though not there, when I created the stub!) You have clearly come in and done a pretty good job, but I'd like to make some process comments.

You simultaneously nominated this page for DYK and at Featured article candidates (FAC). In my opinion, that was a jump too fast at this point. FAC is not easy to get the hang of, and it can be absolutely demanding. The comments you are getting are probably going to make you feel like you've gone into the deep end. I have one FA (WBPX-TV, which recently appeared on the Main Page) as well as a second FAC that is kind of languishing right now (KCPQ). FAs don't have to be long, but they do have to be exhaustive and comprehensive in their coverage. (To give you an idea of what that looks like in broadcasting, my field of choice, WBPX-TV has about 120 references, and KCPQ has 150. WWJ-TV, which I co-wrote and intend to take to FAC in the near future, approaches 200.)

I'd strongly suggest going through the Good article nominations (GAN) process first. DYK, GAN, and FAC form a ramp of expected quality and rigor of review. GAN is a great place for editors who are honing their craft to become very familiar with our policies and guidelines and to be exposed to advice from outside of their topic area. (Depending on the topic area, especially if there are few type examples of GAs and FAs, this can be very important; in my experience, GAN reviewers have sometimes left comments that have impacted the standard in the entire field I write.) If you write a few articles that you want to take to GAN, you'll also be expected to start reviewing other pages, which is similarly an enlightening experience.

These aren't content suggestions, but this one is. One thing that a normal FAC review will ask, and which I ask for at GAN primarily to make editors aware, is alt text. This text is used by screen readers to describe images.

I am more than happy to provide mentoring and assistance because you've made a good first impression as a new editor. You're clearly engaged and here to improve, and what's left is mostly taking the content and style suggestions from the FAC reviewers (and me) to heart and becoming ever more familiar with our policies, guidelines, and manual of style. You can ping me here when you reply by starting your message with {{ping|Sammi Brie}} and signing it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to add this earlier but forgot. There's a Wikipedia community Discord server (WP:DISCORD). Having direct contact with other editors is likely to help you grow as an editor yourself, and I'd recommend it for you. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's me again. I've gone through and added the clippings to the various Republic articles, just as I promised. I see the FAC has been failed, which is the right call.

I think one more comment I'd have to make is that one should always ask when conceptualizing the depth of a Wikipedia article, "is this level of depth encyclopedic"?

• Not every possible detail about a topic is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article. Remember, that's what we're writing.
• An overdetailed page does not serve readers. Going back to my topic area of broadcasting, you should compare KWTV-DT to KFOR-TV. The former consists of 9,545 words with 180 unique inline citations. The latter has 7,728 words and 325 unique inline citations. Which is an easier read?
  • I have taken pages to GA status while reducing their prose size. The best example is KDAF, which lost 40 percent of its readable prose size between the time I started improving it and its promotion to GA.

The more time I spend with the Verrado page, the more I'm left wondering if your interest in 5x expansion has left the page overstuffed with minor details that in turn struggle to find verifiability in quality reliable sources. It is, of course, possible to write GAs and FAs about high schools, like Johnson Senior High School (Saint Paul, Minnesota). Verrado becomes a toughie because it just hasn't been around all that long. Making it adhere to policy may keep it from 5x expansion (and thus DYK, without going through the GA process). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to not include useless information but it's kind of difficult. SyntheticSystems (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Verrado High School, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Verrado High School in Arizona offers all-female engineering classes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Verrado High School. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Verrado High School), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Desert Edge High School at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agua Fria High School, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a mercury spill occurred at Agua Fria High School when students discovered and started playing with an unsecured supply of the element? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agua Fria High School. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Agua Fria High School), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Agua Fria Union High School District at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time this month one of your nominations at DYK has had to be failed because you did not actually complete a 5x expansion despite claiming otherwise. Please stop sending in ineligible nominations, it wastes other editors' time and reflects poorly upon you. Doing it once I can forgive, but multiple times clearly implies negligence on your part. You can use User:SD0001/DYK-helper to check prose size of an article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Canyon View High School (Arizona) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shawn Teller -- Shawn Teller (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Canyon View High School (Arizona) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Canyon View High School (Arizona) for comments about the article, and Talk:Canyon View High School (Arizona)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shawn Teller -- Shawn Teller (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you need anything else at Talk:Bit House Saloon/GA1 .Thanks for reviewing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused and concerned that between 11:37 and 15:15, you have approved 3 articles with no comments at all [1],[2],[3], put 3 articles on hold with image issues only [4], [5], [6], and put another 3 articles on hold with very minimal and vague comments [7], [8],[9]. 9 articles in less than four hours seems as if it would be impossible to thoroughly review the material. It typically takes me an entire day to review one article. While I AGF that you thoroughly reviewed these, I hope that you understand my concerns and why I am going to ask for another review of both of my articles. If you want to discuss with me, please reply here, but ping me. SusunW (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SyntheticSystems, I've returned the two articles SusunW nominated that you reviewed to the GAN queue as she found your reviews unhelpful.

If I might offer a piece of advice: we all edit pseudonymously on Wikipedia, and so unlike most school/workplaces we don't have credentials or obvious hierarchy to lend us credibility. Instead you build trust among your fellow editors by accumulating a history of positive contributions. You could be the most careful and your reviewing the most thorough, but if you don't explain your thinking, how would we possibly know? Put another way, your reviews offer just a few brief comments; whether that's because you thoroughly checked the article and came away satisfied, or you gave it an insufficient summary glance, we can't tell. And we don't have a long history of your contributions to base assumptions on.

So I'm sorry to be here with a negative message. But I hope you don't take it too personally. Wikipedia is a big place full of rules and norms, both written and unwritten. Some level of friction is inevitable. I hope you stick around and continue to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. In the meantime, maybe read over some GA reviews from more experienced users to get an idea of what kind of feedback the nominators are hoping to receive. All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SyntheticSystems, just picking up on your message at WT:GAN. Firstly, it's not a huge kerfuffle, so I hope it's not very off-putting. I think it may be possible to improve communication here, and that may alleviate concerns people might have. In general, nominators will probably appreciate a review more if it feels like the reviewer has engaged in their work. Many of your reviews are very short, and contain little to reflect the individual page they cover. Looking at Talk:Education in Wales/GA1 as an example, your statements come off as pro-forma ticking. Now, I do not think your reviews are actually pro-forma, as you clearly raise issues where you find them, but that may be the appearance nominators are receiving. If there is nothing to comment on critically, giving an example of something you liked can show engagement with the source. This doesn't need to be done for all criteria, but a couple of times would not go amiss! We do particularly encourage pointing out specific sources you read to check that the information in the article is in the source, and that there is no plagiarism. Again not every source is needed, just a couple of examples!

I would also recommend more detail for where you find issues. You state that in Education in Wales "some references need page numbers". Listing the specific references you feel need page numbers, or perhaps a few choice examples if there are a lot, makes it clear to a nominator what exactly you found during your review. Education in Wales has 82 sources, so the nominator is working a bit in the dark with this comment. On a related note, while it's great to look for alt text and point out where it is missing, it is not a requirement for obtaining a GA, so don't feel a need to keep an article on hold just for that issue! Hope this makes some sense, please let me know if it did not. Thanks for undertaking the reviews! Best, CMD (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[10] ChristieBot takes care of processing completed nominations. There is no reason to remove them yourself, and doing so may cause issues for the bot. Did you miss the giant edit notice which says Attention! This page is automatically maintained by a bot. Updating this page is unnecessary and manual updates will most likely be removed by the bot if they do not reflect the information in the template on the article's talk page.? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I just got impatient.

I don't know why you're being so needlessly harsh. You assume that I've been on this website for years and then get upset when I make a mistake. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assume anything, and I'm not "upset". I've been here less than 2 years myself, in fact. I'm just informing you so you won't make this mistake in the future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Canyon View High School (Arizona), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the solar panels of Canyon View High School provide shade from the Arizona heat and provide 20 percent of the school's energy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Canyon View High School (Arizona). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Canyon View High School (Arizona)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just checking up on your activity status, seeing as you haven't edited since the 9th. I need to know if you can finish or close or whatever course you choose with your GA review. If you've quit, that's fine, but I need to have some sort of update about this. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone else should review it. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Thanks for the help so far! Mebigrouxboy (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SyntheticSystems, a recent GAN of yours, Canyon View High School (Arizona), was reviewed by a sockpuppet, likely using ChatGPT. Unfortunately, ChatGPT is not good at this job, and these reviews have been removed. Your nomination has been returned to the GAN queue at the original nomination date. No action is needed on your end, aside from the usual GAN process! Apologies for any inconvenience. Best, CMD (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]