User talk:Kavyansh.Singh/Archive 3

January 1, 2022 — June 30, 2022

Your GA nomination of Louis H. Bean
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Louis H. Bean you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ExcellentWheatFarmer -- ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louis H. Bean
The article Louis H. Bean you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Louis H. Bean for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of ExcellentWheatFarmer -- ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice stuff happening on January 1! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Draft Eisenhower movement

 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just saw this while peeking at your Wikicup entry, congrats ! Glad I was part of this article's process on its way to FA :) Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  23:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ – Thanks a lot! I really appreciate the review, and it helped in eventually reaching FA level. (When I nominated it for GA, I had no intention what-so-ever to make it FA!) Let me know if you ever require help in any of your GAN review/peer review. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Kavyansh.Singh. Your account has been added to the " " 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: 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. signed,Rosguill talk 16:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.

Ladoga Skerries National Park
Nice work on the Ladoga Skerries National Park article. It's close to being long enough again. I wouldn't be against unwithdrawing my nomination if it gets to 1,500 characters or above and adding you as co-creator. SL93 (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ – We are now at 2229 characters! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Day of Infamy speech
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Day of Infamy speech you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The Yankee FAC
Thanks again for your GAN review of The Yankee! I have just nominated it for FAC, so if there's anything from your GAN review that you think should be shared there, you are welcome to do so. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats great! Will take a look soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Day of Infamy speech
The article Day of Infamy speech you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Day of Infamy speech for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Will try to fix the issues and re-nominate. Thanks for letting me know about the post 9/11 sources issues (else I would have not known that)! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)



Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 12:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Again? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

GA
Thanks for the GA review. I'm happy to have another Iowa article that I started be GA status. I'm planning on trying to get my GA It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School to FA status, but it seems like a daunting task and I'm not sure what FAs to compare the topic to. I'm sure I will figure something out though. SL93 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats on another GA! Indeed, writing FAs is a daunting task. I'll be happy to give it a read soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Thanks for the offer. SL93 (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just seeing if you could review the FA if you have time. The article has one reviewer and one support so far. I understand if you don't want to. but I'm just trying to be more proactive. SL93 (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, how could I not! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Ladoga Skerries National Park
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for another good one, and working in the preps! - Happy new year! - One of my pics was on the Main page (DYK) and even made the stats. - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. - As for Beethoven's Ninth, pipe is fine for the Main page, but in articles, we say "Verdi's Otello", not the composer in the pipe, which would be a bit easter-eggy as the composer might be expected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ – Happy New Year to you too! Working in preps is an honor for me, and I hope I have been useful. ALT1 hook frankly amazed me, thats why I was bit inclined towards selecting it. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! 2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ – You seem pretty busy, but that is just normal for you, isn't it :) Update on Sousa, I've just created List of operettas by John Philip Sousa, and guess what! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (march)
Hello! Your submission of Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (march) 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 as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dahn (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Smile :)
 Hello Kavyansh.Singh, Pamzeis has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Well, that was something unexpected. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

TFL notification
Hi, Kavyansh.Singh. I'm just posting to let you know that United States presidential elections in Utah – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for January 31. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 23:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for George H. W. Bush broccoli comments
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bruxton (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is nice! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Newcomer
Hello. I was wondering if you could review my review of a GA nomination. Since this is my first time, and your name is on the GA Mentors list, I was hoping you could look at it to see if it was acceptable and is a good review (it says I should do so here if you're wondering why i'm asking you this). If you do decide to review it, here it is. Remember, Imurmate I&#39;ma editor2022 (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @ – I appreciate the request and thanks for volunteering to review a GA nomination. We quite always have a backlog and definitely appreciate the involvement of new editors. I see that you have not left any comments for the prose, but is maybe fine in this case, as the article is quite strong on prose. We usually look at only limited parts of MOS for GANs, but it is better to suggest any possible improvement, like:

I agree with your concerns of sourcing. The "Episodes" section does need sourcing, but only for date and "Directed by"/"Written by", etc. The synopsis of each episode could be written neutrally without sources. I'd also say that "Cast and characters" is un-cited. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * just six days after the first season's release — " 's " should be out of the link
 * Principal photography also took place earlier that month around Marietta, Georgia on October 15 — there should be a MOS:GEOCOMMA after 'Georgia'; etc.


 * Thank you for the comments I will be sure to include it in the review, but do you think it would be appropriate to put this on hold? Remember, Imurmate I&#39;ma editor2022 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ – Well, the article has some issues, so it cannot and should not be "quick-passed". But, the issues are not that extensive that a "quick-fail" is warranted. So the best we can do is keep it "on hold" for 7 days or so. If progress is made, I'll be inclined to keep it on hold as long as required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you for your comments, and also for responding so quickly! Remember, Imurmate I&#39;ma editor2022 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Boy Scouts of America (march) has been accepted
 Boy Scouts of America (march), 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  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Boy_Scouts_of_America_(march) 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Rusalkii (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @: It was nice trying AfC after a long time. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Promoting DYK hooks
I was wondering if you could promote Template:Did you know nominations/Price of the Modi Years. I'm not sure if I can promote it because I'm the own who fixed the article's issues and theleekycauldron made the final approval. Theleekycauldron might get to it soon, but I can't promote the old nominations Template:Did you know nominations/Vivienne Rohner and Template:Did you know nominations/Beate Ulbricht because I donated the QPQs. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @, Done! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I forgot about Template:Did you know nominations/John William Kiser which neither I or theleekycauldron can promote. SL93 (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Done! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. SL93 (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Opinion on length
I was wondering what your opinion as too short for FA status is. One Day at HorrorLand is an article that I brought to GA status and I expanded the article more to 5,967 characters. I have almost ran out of potential content to add based on the reliable sources. This book is one of only five original Goosebumps books to have significant coverage out of 62 of them. In relation to all Goosebumps books which total around 150 or so, there is only one extra book that has significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi for FAs, there is no fixed length. All we need is comprehensiveness. If some 3,900 characters satisfy comprehensiveness, let it be a FA! For this particular article, it is not too short, and the only source I was able to find not used in the article is, which, I agree does not discuss the topic in great detail. So I'd believe that it is comprehensive. But, yeah, the article can take few improvements pre-FAC. But, overall, it good! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful response. It is now at Featured article candidates/One Day at HorrorLand/archive1. SL93 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I nominated it at AfD to find consensus due to Czar. The article passed DYK and GA and is now being threatened at FA. SL93 (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel involved to participate in AfD, but I do want to note here that article being GA does not necessarily guarantee notability; months ago, a featured article was AfDed and subsequently merged. Not that I am saying One Day at HorrorLand should be merged, but I'll definitely let the community decide it one way or the other. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Three weeks stable article
During the last 3 weeks since review the James Madison article has been stable with some help edits made by other editors. You had mentioned at that time that you might be able to bring in some edits from sources available to you which I do not have available to me, in order to make the article more comprehensive and lead to a possible FA nomination. Any thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Will try to get to it in a few days, but currently, I have quite a few commitments both on and off Wikipedia. But, I am still interested in seeing President Madison as a FA! Meanwhile, you may request a copy-edit from WP:GOCE/REQ, if you wish so. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * GOCE backlog is nearly 6-8 weeks; are you sure it would not be better timing to do a GOCE listing after making the upgrade edits which you previously mentioned and summarized in my comment above? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My top priority(ies) currently on-Wikipedia is improving the articles: Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy and Darwin medal. Both are at FAR and FLR, which I am trying to get back to the featured level. After that being done, I'll get back to James Madison. It is upto you when to request GOCE. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

fyi
This might be of interest. valereee (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, valereee, the questions will help me in voting; I have no interaction with the user before. Is any of my question wrong/irrelevant ? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself whether you really needed to get those questions answered in order to evaluate the candidate. Unless you really need to ask a question in order to evaluate a candidate, unless your decision to support or oppose needs that answer, every extra question is a bit of extra stress for that candidate, who is going through a 24/7 week of stress. Just think about that. And asking two? Why? You really need both those answers in order to decide whether to support or oppose? valereee (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @valereee, Yes, I need answer to the second question to decide whether to support/oppose the user, whom I have never known before this RfA. You can say that first question is not necessarily required, and that is why they are "Optional questions". If the candidate doesn't feel comfortable, or is too stressed out, they may not answer that. That would not be a reason for me to oppose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * valereee, and now, thoughtful responses to my questions did help me in deciding to support Requests for adminship/Modussiccandi. I understand your concern that RfAs are stressful for candidates; I had read that essay before. But honestly, I do not think that we should discourage someone from asking questions, except if their questions are inappropriate. Similar to how we do not force the candidate to answer optional questions. However, if the community thinks that my questions were irrelevant, I'll be happy to not ask them again in future RfAs. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to keep talking because I know you from DYK and respect you, and I'd like to try to dig into this with you. Please understand this as not a continued criticism of you but an attempt to come to some understanding. Okay, let's take your Q1. What reasonably possible answer would have answered a reasonable concern you had? Why were you concerned this editor didn't understand notability? And your Q2, similar question. This is an editor with a very impressive AfD record. Why were you concerned they might not understand closing of AfD? valereee (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @, appreciate your request for clarification. Q1: Okay, I had minor doubt over the user's understanding of notability, as, going through there contributions, there are various instances where they have "change !vote" in deletion discussion. (Example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Especially in this case, where they change !vote from 'delete (nominator)' to 'merge'. To me, that is indirectly saying that 'the topic is not notable, but yes, it is fine to add its content to another article'. Nevertheless, I though asking some clarification would not harm. More importantly, Q2: Yes, the editor has an impressive AfD record, but per this, they have not closed any AfD discussions, when non-admins can close uncontroversial discussions. I do think we can agree that "!voting in AfD" and "closing AfD" are two very separate things. Because this editor, which a very impressive AfD record, themselves admit, and I quote: "[...] I would not have the guts to attempt such a close any time soon" (Source). Helping with AfD as an admin simply means to me that they will close the discussion, and I do feel it is important to ask how will they do so. Let me add that I do not want RfA candidates to be perfect; no one if perfect. I am not looking for them to have long list of AfD closing record, but in this case, we simply have nothing to see their judgement in that area. Even if, like all of us, they have a few issues with few discussion, it does not matter more than their ability to learn. Modussiccandi is an excellent candidate, and I do hope they'l make a great admin. As to your original concern about unnecessary/irrelevant questions at RfA, I did not think of these questions just for the sake of asking. I honestly thought that it will help me, as well as others. I am sorry that you did not thought that way, but I do appreciate you approaching me. Thoughts? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm afraid we're not going to agree that changing !votes when new evidence is brought in is in any way a problem. I don't think it's just my opinion that it's a definite good thing that someone is open to changing their !vote at AfD or any other discussion, and that they're paying attention to a discussion they've already !voted in. Too many people do the opposite -- drop a !vote and never circle back to see if anything has changed. Or refuse to change their !vote. I've pinged people back to AfDs before when there was new evidence, and some don't even bother to acknowledge the ping.
 * Nor are we going to agree on the idea that moving from delete to merge is somehow evidence of not understanding notability. The fact something isn't notable for its own article doesn't in any way mean the content isn't perfectly suitable to be included in some other article. And as has been discussed in the general section, many RfA !voters would actively disapprove of a candidate who had done more than a few closes at AfD.
 * But aight, if you felt like you really needed those questions in order to come up with a support or oppose, it's fine. Bringing in the diffs that you were concerned about is always a better choice, so for future, you might at minimum consider that. valereee (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @valereee, Lets agree to disagree, shall we! If we look only at the positive side, then yes, it is good that someone cares to follow the deletion discussion, and change their vote when something new is brought up. That does show that they are willing to accept other's point of view, and accept their own mistakes. We agree on that. But I do think that if an article can be merged, it is better to open a talk page discussion for the same, than nominating it for AfD. And if I understand that discussion correctly, people say that closing AfDs should not be a requirement. I can't see anyone objecting a RfA just because the candidate has closed AfD discussions. Regardless, I do appreciate your willingness to discuss. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Deleting Articles
Hello Kavyansh.Singh

You have recently asked for the removal of my article because the public figure was not well know. However Fred der Saftige is famous in both Switzerland and Liechtenstein among teenagers who listen to hyper pop. So unless you fit the demographic yes, you will not know who Fred der Saftige is but that is like saying Ronald Regan is not a famous figure because I don't know anything about US politics or presidents. So I think you should rethink your decision to remove the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fondblors (talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @: There are a few things to note:
 * I considered the draft (Draft:Fred der Safitge) " promote or publicise an entity, person, [...]" because it does not has any reliable sources supporting the article. It is a biography of living person, not yet shown to be notable. Even if he is popular in certain region among certain age-group, unfortunate, the subject does not has coverage in secondary reliable sources (See WP:RS) Spotify, Saftig, etc. are not reliable sources. We will need reliable sources to assert notability.
 * I see that you have marked File:Fred der Saftige.jpg as your "Own work". Since that is a selfie, I'll assume that you are the subject himself, that is, you are writing an article on yourself. Per Autobiography, "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged".
 * Me knowing or not knowing the subject has nothing to do with its notability. I know many, many people who are not notable per Wikipedia's standard.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Skinny Hightower
Hello Kavyansh.Singh, I respect your work as well as your work ethic and would be honored if you would review the article for jazz pianist Skinny Hightower. Thank you for your time. WikiJazzHub (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @, thanks for the compliments and your work on the article. Sooner of later, some volunteer would surely take a look. For the future, please make sure that your request to other users is neutrally worded; few other editors might consider this WP:Canvassing. Thanks for approaching, though! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Will definitely keep this in mind in the future. Regards WikiJazzHub (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much
I was lost, and running around messaging others. But you fixed my jumbled DYK, thanks. Bruxton (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bruxton, Oh sure, I'm always happy to help! Just a few notes: when you link any text, you should not use wiki-links or tags in the piped text. For example,  will almost certainly break the template. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

TFL notification – February 2022
Hi, Kavyansh.Singh. I'm just posting to let you know that List of marches by John Philip Sousa – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 21. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Giants2008: Well, I had requested it to appear on the main page on July 4, see Today's featured list/Submissions. It would be appreciated if it can be held off till that date. Else, I trust your judgement. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I forgot that the list was already at TFLS. I've taken the liberty of pulling it with the aim of running it on July 4. Thanks for reminding me about your request. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK
Your special occasion hook is now in prep 6 for February 8. It's nice seeing an audio file be used. SL93 (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed; Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (march)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

cute, thank you! - tymy joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! One more Sousa march below!!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you, - that's great! - Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Boy Scouts of America (march)
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * full disclosure, I did a couple assignments with this one on loop in the background... it is, as the kids these days say (i think?), "a straight-up banger" :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @: Well, there you go, Sousa deserves the credit! Its nice to see the current main page. Sousa's march on Boy Scouts of America on one side; William D. Boyce, who established the Boy Scouts on another side! Sorry for my limited presence on DYK, am slightly busy off Wikipedia. When on Wikipedia, Darwin Medal and Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy takes most of my time. If time permits, will try to get to your peer review soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for input on a featured article candidacy
Greetings, I have nominated Lake Estancia for a featured article nomination. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. The instructions for the review process are here. Thanks in advance for any comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How can one decline this generous offer by someone who has helped me in all my FACs. Would be glad to leave comments soon! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * @: Well, there we go! Thanks! Best thing about reviewing FACs is that, currently, we have a large group of diverse topics. Lot of excellent articles for review to choose from! (However, upon another look, there seems to be everything except politics). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * True, although we have had several earlier in the year - Featured articles promoted in 2022. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

2nd Opinion needed on GA Nomination Robert W. Brady
Hello,

If you're not too busy, I request need help a second opinion on GA nomination Robert W. Brady (if so, you aren't obligated to). To be honest, i'm not sure my reasons for a second opinion is valid, but I request help nonetheless. Here is the GA review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'ma editor2022 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Kavyansh.Singh. Your account has been added to the " " 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: 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. signed,Rosguill talk 19:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News
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. 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)
 * 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.

Meena Kumari
Hello. Would you like to review Meena Kumari? Thank you. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nicholas Michael Halim: Sure, why not. Also, if you wish to do a review in return, I'll appreciate a FLC review for Featured list candidates/List of operettas by John Philip Sousa/archive1. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for List of operettas by John Philip Sousa
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

TFL notification – March 2022
Hi, Kavyansh.Singh. I'm just posting to let you know that Darwin Medal – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 14. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
 * 🇨🇽 AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
 * Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
 * GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
 * 🇺🇳 Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The Reviewer Barnstar

 * While I am yet to reply to the Nehru one, and the editor involved hasn't addressed your comments as far as I can tell, the points you've raised and your comment have given me some motivation with respect to the review. :) DTM (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank a lot for the kind words, DTM; I am glad my review was of some help! And I am fifth in just the first round of a year-long cup! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ike for President (advertisement)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ike for President (advertisement) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi! I was just wondering if you'd ever thought of giving adminship a shot. Not that I'm looking to nominate you (my nom would genuinely nuke an RfA) but think you'd have a really good shot so I'd like to hear your opinions on it.A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 23:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @ for the kind words; you made my day!! I honestly feel that every user has only one serious chance at RfA in 2-3 years. If one's RfA fails, second RfA within span of 1 year would most likely again be unsuccessful. I'd like to save my first chance for later ... I currently am happy reviewing and improving articles. For a serious RfA, I do need much more involvement in AfD and CSD. So, while I'd like to one day be an admin, I am not planning to run anytime soon. Rest, I never thought anyone would consider me for adminship, so I'm pretty happy! As a side note, I'd like to thank you again for you GA review of Draft Eisenhower movement. Especially, for introducing me to File:1952 Eisenhower Political Ad - I Like Ike - Presidential Campaign Ad.webm. That ad will soon be on the main page, and I just created Ike for President (advertisement)!! I hope everything is fine on your end ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, with a 93% match AfD voting record AfD might be less of a concern than you think. Of course, I'm not an experienced RfA nominator so you'd get better feedback at ORCP. In any case, if you're happy with how you're contributing to Wikipedia there's no need for you to run urgently.It's great to hear you drove the Draft Eisenhower article so far, it's really cool to see you're getting a TFA! I'm glad my scavenging through Commons helped :) The ad article is looking nice. I kind of expect it being used in the future in classroom settings to teach media literacy (my highschool did so with campaign ads), which is always interesting. I myself am managing, the invasion of Ukraine kind of threw a wrench into a lot of stuff in my irl life so I'm doing what I can to float on. Hope you've had a nice Carnival week, if you celebrate. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 07:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to avoid reviewing topics you are unfamiliar with
Hello, Kavyansh.Singh. Thanks for reviewing articles! I noticed you seem unprepared to conduct reviews for topics that you are unfamiliar with. If you are interested in reviewing articles in unfamiliar topics, the proper procedure is to read example Featured Articles or Good Articles in the same topic area. (For example, if you want to review a sports biography and are unfamiliar with sports, you should first read several sport biography FAs before conducting a review of sport biography FA candidate. That way, you would know what a proper sports biography FA would look like.) In particular, I noticed in your review of Daisy Pearce that you stated you "know almost nothing about sports" and yet you left highly-critical comments after spending only 19 minutes to conduct the review, before ultimately suggesting the nomination be withdrawn. If you had looked at some example FAs in the same subject area, you would have already known that the sources used in the article are the correct types of sources that should be used in the article. We always need more reviewers, but reviews where the reviewer is not willing to put in sufficient effort are not particularly helpful. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Sportsfan77777, thanks you your input. I have reviewed many article/list at FLC, and GAN, and few at FAC, outside my expertise. I feel it is very important for every nomination to have at-least one non-expert review. If the article is featured, there would be many people reading it, and a good number of people would be like me. I admitted my non expertise in the review, I even wrote that I have not read the entire article. My comments were not based on any particular technical issues which only experts can give. The criteria is same for every article: "high quality reliable sources". My comments were not critical, but something anyone normal reviewer can give. I felt, and still feel that the article does not meet those high standard of sourcing. I have put my efforts in various review I have conducted over the time, and am willing to do here as well. I asked the few sourcing question, but did not find any reason (and still haven't found out) why, say 'www.womens.afl', 'www.changehergame.com', 'afl.com.au', 'The Footy Almanac', or 'Facbeook' (in this case not used for direct quotations), are high-quality reliable sources. That is why I suggested to withdraw. I know there are many reviewers who would give much better review, and that is primarily why I did not oppose yet. I am happy that there are other reviewers disagreeing with me, which should be a normal part of every healthy discussion. But I still didn't understand why you called my review "blatantly sexist" and requested it to be "disregarded", when, if-fact, it was based on FA criteria. Thanks for approaching, though! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not going to get a "healthy discussion" if you suggest withdrawal from the beginning. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a non-expert review and being ignorant on purpose. It's your responsibility to try to figure out what would be good sources to use. Not having expertise on the subject doesn't prevent you from figuring out what would be a good source. It's not the nominator's job to explain it to you if you haven't made an effort yourself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sportsfan77777: I disagree that reviewers need to provide better sources to claim that the sources used in the article are not WP:HQRS. Reviewers needs to evaluate the article based on FA criteria, and then judge whether the article meets it or not. I don't think I have been ignorant. Had I been that, I would not have replied to nominator's comments. I see that another reviewer has provided some sources not used in the article. Since you say that, I'll also add on the FAC page few sources which are not present in the article. But I am glad we both can agree that even non-experts can figure out whether a source is good or not; because that is exactly what I did. I viewed the sources, did not find them to be WP:HQRS, and suggested to withdraw. As to why I did it in the immediate beginning: because I got chance to review the article in the immediate beginning! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did try to figure out if the sources were good or not, and you did a poor job, probably because you did not put in enough effort. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And if reviewers do have criticism of the sources for not being WP:HQRS, they do often ask the nominators why other sources that are available weren't used. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sportsfan77777: My apologies if you feel I had made any error while evaluating sources. As for your second point, I did. I asked "Can you elaborate as to how did you find sources for the article", and again "Are there no books/academic work about her life?". Steelkamp had mentioned few sources not used in the article. Per your request, even I have added list few sources which I feel should have been used. Again, I'm sorry if you think I did a "poor job". Thanks for letting me know! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ike for President (advertisement)
The article Ike for President (advertisement) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ike for President (advertisement) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ike for President (advertisement)
The article Ike for President (advertisement) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ike for President (advertisement) for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Theleekycauldron and User:Gog the Mild submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * User Kavyansh.Singh has made almost 10,000 edits. 13 featured lists, 11 good articles, 19 DYK nominations, an A-class article, a featured picture, and 3 featured articles give them more decorations than a four-star general. Their first FA, "Daisy", was a thing of beauty. They are greatly interested in American politics and their efforts to cover the history of U.S. presidents, presidential candidates, presidential elections, and other aspects of national politics have been absolutely outstanding and super engaging. In addition, Kavyansh.Singh has been active in the field of DYK with 14 Featured while helping to build prep sets and raise flags at WT:DYK when nominations don't look quite right. Kavyansh.Singh is personable, enjoyable to work with, and remarkably sane, and richly deserves being an Editor of the Week!

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   16:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, what should I say! @,, and , thanks a lot for this esteemed honor. I am not sure if I exactly deserve this, but am happy to know that I have been of at-least some help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Well deserved, Kavyansh :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I am overwhelmed! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Richly deserved. Bask in the glory. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is very kind of you to say! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank-you! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * bask indeed :) just gonna add my voice to the choir here, absolutely well-deserved. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy you think so! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

FAC source reviews
Thank you for doing source reviews at FAC! I would recommend doing at least informal spot-checks for just about every FAC you do a source review for. I ran some on about half of the web sources on Featured article candidates/Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957/archive1, and found several instances of details just not supported by the sources. I generally do at least a couple informal ones on just about everyone except for Gog, who I've checked enough at GAN/ACR/FAC in the past to tell that their sourcing is generally beyond reproach. Hog Farm Talk 02:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @: Thanks a lot! I'll take care of this. Actually, in my source review, I did state: "Spotchecks not done" on the top, because it wasn't nominators first nomination. But yeah, should have done few informal ones as well. Thanks for the spot-checks; had I been in your place, even I would have opposed. I can do all the book spot-checks, if you coordinators require. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that it's generally best to conduct them to at least an informal degree if you're going to mark a source review as passed, since source-text integrity is part of the in-practice interpretation of the verifiable clause in the FA sourcing criteria. Generally the more detailed stuff needs to be done for a more limited set of circumstances, such as a first-time nominator, if something is suspicious, or if you've found several issues in the limited checks. Hog Farm Talk 05:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it, Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Thanks a lot! As for minimalist FA, that is something near to impossible! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, never say never... — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And it has been achieved! I knew someone could manage it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @: So glad to be proven wrong. But after all, he is Gog, can do anything!! We have another attempt in progress, see Rachel Dyer. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Very interesting—I'll keep an eye on it, but FAC can add a lot of edits. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Draft Eisenhower movement, "about how General Dwight D. Eisenhower was persuaded by both the Democratic and Republican Party to contest the presidency. We won't see that today! Both in the 1948 and 1952 presidential election: politicians, news organizations, columnist, composers, and many citizens campaigned to "Draft Eisenhower". And "Ike" (nickname of Eisenhower, because you can't remember that long name!) refused all requests to enter politics. The Draft movement failed in 1948, but the upset victory of Harry S. Truman made many Republicans to again campaign for Eisenhower in 1952. Democrats to tried to persuade him, saying that he can win only as a Democrat. Senator Paul Douglas even suggested both parties to nominate Eisenhower with different vice-presidential running mates. The famous "I like Ike" campaign slogan was associated with this movement. Eisenhower at-last agreed to contest Republican primaries, and won few of them despite never actively campaigning himself. He was elected president as a Republican, and served two terms."! ... and for the new featured list! - I listened to the charity concert mentioned here (on radio, it was soon sold out). I created the articles of the composer and the soprano, and more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! My first TFA!!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Prayer for Ukraine is on the Main page, finally + new flowers, and btw: today's TFA is also a writer's first. Thanks for FAC comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Bach's No. 1 today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gavin Arthur
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gavin Arthur you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gavin Arthur
The article Gavin Arthur you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gavin Arthur for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/John Adams (2)

 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Ike for President (advertisement)
There's always next time, and it looks like you're just outside arm's reach at the moment. Nothing looks beyond repair—and hey, if anyone could pull it off, it's you. For my part, i've learned to be quite a bit more careful on source reviews ;) and thank you for sticking up for me on the note. Glad it was just a misunderstanding after all, but that was truly awfully nice of you. :D go get 'em. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @theleekycauldron: Thanks, and I'm sorry you had to do so much despite having less time. I know how it feels to conduct a spot-check! Will definitely take this back to FAC, after a copy-edit and PR. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gavin Arthur
The article Gavin Arthur you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gavin Arthur for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Jubilee coinage
Is there a chance that your review of the article make you able to state an opinion on whether it should be promoted? Much obliged,--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Ian Rush FL
Just saw that it has been promoted. Thanks again for taking it up! I really appreciate it! REDMAN 2019 ( talk ) 18:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @REDMAN 2019: My pleasure; my first "sports" related wiki work. Let me know if you ever need any help! Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Gallup's most admired man and woman poll
Congratulations! (Sorry for being late to notice) - A Ukraine day today: Maks Levin DYK, expanding Kyiv Symphony Orchestra (where I added the composer), and creating Anthony Robin Schneider, the bass who could be heard opening the singing in Beethoven's Ninth twice on 10 March 2022, live in Frankfurt, Germany, and recorded in Auckland, New Zealand. Help with DYK wording appreciated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK preps
Thanks for promoting hooks that I reviewed. Also, thanks to for helping finish the set. SL93 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @: It is always a pleasure to help anyway I can. Feel free to let me know if you need any other help promoting/reviewing nominations which you can't (due to being involved, etc.). Also thanks to Z1720 for stepping in, DYK does need more prep builders. I currently am trying to focus most of my Wiki time on an article I am trying to improve back to FA status, so am bit less active at DYK. Hopefully I'll return to active prep building soon. [apologies if I am missing someone], but you and seem to be the only two active prep builders. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words above KS and . I've recently returned from a Wikibreak, and thought I should get back into DYK prep. The advantage I have at the moment is that I haven't reviewed hooks recently, so I won't be blocked from promoting hooks unless I find a concern while evaluating for promotion. When we are on one-set-a-day, I avoid reviewing because I want to delay the switch as long as possible. When we are back to two-a-day, I'll start reviewing more often. Feel free to ping me or leave a message on my talk page if a hook needs a promoter. Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

County maps in election lists
Hey again, it's been a while. I wanna ask if it's still a possibility to put county result maps in the state presidential election lists. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 02:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Koopatrev! Nice to hear from you. I am currently not working on that list series, but do hope to return soon. As for county result maps, well, we have few issues with that. Firstly, we don't have sources to verify the exact data per county; that just get worse when be start finding stats of mid-1800 elections (example: Andrew Jackson allegedly won 99.97% popular vote in Alabama. Thankfully, it is not Georgia's election.) Secondly, I don't think those county maps really help the reader. So, I don't think it should be added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Robin Williams performances/archive1
All the usual disclaimers apply: I'm not an expert on anything, and especially not on commas. Still, the first line in your review doesn't seem right to me, and I'd like to revert the addition of that serial comma. It seems to me to violate the more usual modern American English practice, and it also seems to violate WP:MOS in roughly three ways ... WP:MOS says "Modern writing uses fewer commas", "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent", and "Serial commas are more helpful the more complex the material". I don't care about commas, but I do care about how nominators feel about the FLC process. (And ... while I'm here, thanks much for stepping up your activity at FLC, your help has been a huge plus.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Dank! Thanks for approaching. I am not an expert on prose and have no issues with that series comma change being reverted. And thanks for that compliment. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reviews of two of my FAC/FLC. Both proved very useful. If you need a reviewer in the future, feel free to reach out. Although I’m not well-versed in American politics (or politics of any country for that matter), a layman's perspective is just what one might need sometimes. FrB.TG (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @FrB.TG: Thanks a lot, it is really very kind of you to say that! I am, and have always been a strong endorser of requiring at-least one non-expert to review any featured article/list candidate. That is necessary, as a very good fraction of those reading the article after it passes the process would be non-experts. Lately, I am trying to explore other strange topics except politics. I just nominated Richard Dawkins Award for FLC, if you are interested in reviewing. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thurmond Filibuster FAC
Howdy! First of all, I can't thank you enough for your help at FAC. Doing the massive source review (did you have to type all of the book quotations by hand? From what I can tell there's no way to copy/paste from the online sources!), performing an extensive general article review, questioning the initial archiving, etc. The reason I'm here is to ask what your guidance (if any) is moving forward. I plan to nominate again, ideally after a (second) full source review. I can't ask you to do this again and I might end up doing it myself (I feel a significant part of it could be done with a nifty little Python script, e.g. laying out and autofilling some parts of the table), but then of course there is the understandable question of COI. I figure worst case scenario there is that reviewers at FAC just have to check my work in the table, but I do worry about an oversight on my part leading to an archiving after reading the closing note. I would be open to a co-nomination if you're interested, as you have already put a solid amount of effort into the article. AviationFreak💬 03:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @AviationFreak, as an initial advise: Don't take this feedback too seriously. By no means am I an FAC expert. That being said, well, I recently realized something interesting about source-to-text integrity. You take any random FAC and start spot checking. There are very high chances that you will find some issues. Thats what I did (here and here), and both had issues. Before nominating, there are multiple round of copy-editing, changing structure, etc, which create these issues. Especially when the person copy-editing is not familiar with the sources. As for Thurmond Filibuster FAC, I believe there should be a way to copy-paste, but for me, I did type them from the book sources. But what now concerns me is that a coordinator requested to have a source-to-text integrity check, when I had already done it. Perhaps, quoting him "It is common in these situations for a nominator to ask an experienced reviewer to thoroughly spot check prior to renomination" (emphasis original). So you should probably ask on the FAC talk page for an experienced reviewer to spot check again. But what further concerns me is that, in his opposing statement, Hog Farm said: "I am opposing and will recommend that this nomination is not promoted until the book sources have been able to be thoroughly spot-checked". After the book sources were thoroughly spot-checked, they yet opposed the nomination, asserting the lost of faith in sourcing, but didn't tell what could be done to regain that faith. I was a little confused on that part, but assuming good faith on that he wanted to help with the project. As for what needs to be done, WT:FAC might give you some feedback. Discuss the sourcing with Hog Farm, ask experienced reviewers to spot-check, and if you decide to renominate, send a neutrally phrased message to every single editor associated with the first FAC to review. As for the co-nomination, my work on the article is mostly "behind the scenes" work, you have significant authorship and should be the sole nominator. Thanks for asking, though, a very kind thing to do! Feel free to let me know if you need any other help. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Adding to the above, sourcing (to be more precise, verifiability) is the only part which needs to be worked out. You already had various supports on prose and other criteria, so that most likely won't be an issue. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @AviationFreak: Any progress? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Haven't gotten much done thus far - Nobody has responded to the integrity check request at the FAC Talk page, and I haven't been able to work too much on the article (or WP at all, for that matter) since I've had a lot going on with real life. I should be able to work on the article a bit more once June arrives, but I may also be a bit more free in May. Thanks for checking in! AviationFreak💬 11:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I've completed a new source review here by frankensteining your review with current article text and refs. If you don't see any issues with this right off, I reckon I'll go ahead and put the article back up at FAC. AviationFreak💬 00:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, I think. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * D'oh, thanks for adding the nom to the FAC page! Forgot about that >.< AviationFreak💬 15:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Ike for President (advertisement)
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For me, any DYK over 10,000 views is great! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK credit for 2022 open letter from Nobel laureates in support of Ukraine
Hello, I noticed that neither I nor user:Buttons0603 were given DYK credit for 2022 open letter from Nobel laureates in support of Ukraine. I’m not sure what happened. Thriley (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * the update was performed manually; I've handed out the credits for it likewise. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents has an RFC
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Louis H. Bean

 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I'm glad you found my work useful! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Sousa for July 4th
July 4th would lose all its fizz and go flat without Sousa's "The Stars and Stripes Forever", and Cagney in Yankee Doodle Dandy. Fingers crossed for your Sousa TFL request of July 4th. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ... and for your request of Pershing House as well! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK Credit
Hi, you promoted the algae article with the gif, but I cannot see that you added the DYK credit. Bruxton (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My bad, now fixed! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I know you're busy at the moment...
But if the meatspace life ever slows down a little, I'd love to get Lady Bird Johnson up to GA status with you! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. I'll have more time in upcoming few days! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * sounds good! any book/scholarly sources you'd recommend? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Added that to the article talk. Also uploaded and added many images! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Daisy Wood Hildreth
I'm just seeing if you can promote the hook. SL93 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Dawkins Award
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter
The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * 1) Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
 * 2) 🇨🇽 AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
 * 3) Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
 * 4) Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
 * 5) Vexilloid of the Roman Empire.svg Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
 * 6) Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
 * 7) 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK promotions
Just seeing if you can promote Template:Did you know nominations/Spotted Demon (bull) and Template:Did you know nominations/Asisguard Songar to prep 7 if everything looks fine with them. They are old nominations that I reviewed. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Those were taken care by Z1720. I promoted few others. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's nice that we have multiple prep builders now. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And a top class hook promoting script as well! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lunch Atop a Skyscraper
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lunch Atop a Skyscraper you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rublov -- Rublov (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lunch Atop a Skyscraper
The article Lunch Atop a Skyscraper you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lunch Atop a Skyscraper for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rublov -- Rublov (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lunch Atop a Skyscraper
The article Lunch Atop a Skyscraper you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lunch Atop a Skyscraper for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Rublov -- Rublov (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Alexei Navalny&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

TFL notification – June 2022
Hi, Kavyansh.Singh. I'm just posting to let you know that Gallup's most admired man and woman poll – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for June 6. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award for Lunch Atop a Skyscraper
I think I spotted a couple typos in the article:


 * while sitting on a steel beam 850 feet (260 meters) above on the sixty-ninth floor I think there's something missing after above. Suggest: above street level.  The lead has "above the ground".
 * Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hahn found her father's $1.50 per hour (equivalent to $30 in 2021) paycheck, the ironworkers's photograph, as well as an image of her father I think this should be "ironworkers" as a descriptive modifier for photograph.  If the possessive, it would generally be without the final "s" for plural agreement (MOS:POSS), but it seems to me it should be an modifier rather than a possessive.
 * Done; it was initially "ironworkers", I think, but this change was suggested in GAN. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been colorized and a 40 feet (12 meters) long statue Should be 40-foot-long. You can fix this in the convert template as, adding the last two parameters and removing the "long" outside of the template.
 * Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Great work! Cheers! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Reidgreg: Thanks a lot! Much appreciated! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Top work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda, it was an interesting topic to work at! The image is a featured picture! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * as this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Killing of Brittanee Drexel&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 03:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Triple Crown
Hi Kavyansh.Singh. The bad news is I'm not seeing enough authorship at Robert M. La Follette for it to count towards your Triple Crown. The good news, however, is that you only needed 15 articles in each category and you had 16, so you're still eligible for the award. Congratulations. :) Sometimes the automatic authorship counter doesn't reflect actual work done, for example, when work is done in a draft before being moved to main space, or when incredibly time consuming work has been done on research that only adds limited prose to an article. So if upgrading your award in the future please give details as to why an article should count towards your Triple Crown if your authorship is well below 25%. Have a great day. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Damien Linnane: Thanks a lot! That is exactly why I submitted 16 article, because I was in doubt whether "Fighting Bob" would count. Best regards, Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Kavyansh.Singh

Thank you for creating Joseph Kinnicutt Angell.

User:MainlyTwelve, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

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

Mainly 14:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

question on length of articles
Hi! At Featured_article_candidates/Mini_scule/archive1, you stated: " [ Mini scule] would be the second shortest FA (between Miss Meyers and Nico Ditch)." Where did you get this information about length of FAs, and what measure was used? If you still remember. (Please ping on reply.) casualdejekyll  21:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * and, of course, it's quite appropriate that a very short frog would have a very short FA, huh? casualdejekyll 21:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @! Check out Featured articles/By length. And yes, its appropriate and funny for a small frog to have a small FA. Although, FAs should be comprehensive, even it it takes just some 700 words! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

English usage
Hi there, Kavyansh.Singh, and thank you for taking an interest in the article on Magna Lykseth-Skogman. I was however a little surprised at your replacing "thanks to" with "due to", commenting "we do not usually thank people on Wikipedia". Like "due to", "thanks to" is widely used as an alternative to "owing to" or "because of". It is often preferred to "due to" which is not always strictly acceptable although I am only too aware that it is gaining popularity around the globe. You might find it useful to look at Correct use of the phrase "due to". I must say you have been making great headway on Wikipedia since you started editing less than two years ago with an FA, an FL, at least one featured picture and several GAs. It's good to see you are now taking an interest in articles about women which represent less than 20% of our biographies and need further support. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Ipigott, thanks for letting me know. I was just concerned that writing "thanks to" might not follow a neutral point of view, specially on an encyclopedia. Feel free to change that, I am not that good when it comes to prose. And yes, we need more women bios; I recently re-wrote Margaret Abbott, a quite unique woman! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding so quickly. I only revert in cases where there is a serious problem, which is not the case here. I am always careful not to do anything which may develop into an edit war. I must say you've done a great job on Abbott. I hope there will be many more. If so, you might like to become a member of WikiProject Women in Red where we are trying to reduce the gender gap.--Ipigott (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Lunch Atop a Skyscraper
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Theleekycauldron: Thanks! 60k is much more than what I expected!!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of James Markham Ambler
Hello! Your submission of James Markham Ambler 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) 16:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Markham Ambler
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James Markham Ambler you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of UnidentifiedX -- UnidentifiedX (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James Markham Ambler
The article James Markham Ambler you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:James Markham Ambler for comments about the article. 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 Legobot, on behalf of UnidentifiedX -- UnidentifiedX (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hi Kavyansh.Singh,

This is to let you know that File:JFK limousine.png, a featured picture you nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 22, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-11-22. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 14:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 16:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Ahecht: I was thinking of about Nov 22, 2023, which would be the 60th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination, but 2022 also works. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and moved it to Nov 22, 2023. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK