User talk:Ppt91/Archive 1

Disambiguation link notification for November 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michelangelo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naturalism. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

April 2022 WikiProject Finance & Investment Newsletter

 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022 WikiProject Finance & Investment Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Finance & Investment June 2022 Newsletter

 * Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Niedzica Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gothic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henryk Stażewski, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Constructivism and Cross of Merit.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Rytka Stazewski 1976.jpeg
Thank you for uploading File:Rytka Stazewski 1976.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe the rationale was valid given the rare nature of the photograph and its benefit for the article, although to ensure there are no possible violations this image will not be re-uploaded or used for the article. Ppt91 (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henryk Stażewski
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Henryk Stażewski 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Ppt91. Thank you for your work on Society for the Encouragement of Fine Arts (Warsaw). User:SunDawn, 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.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   03:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henryk Stażewski
The article Henryk Stażewski 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:Henryk Stażewski and Talk:Henryk Stażewski/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henryk Stażewski
The article Henryk Stażewski you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Henryk Stażewski for comments about the article, and Talk:Henryk Stażewski/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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Zachęta into Society for the Encouragement of Fine Arts (Warsaw). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thank you for your message. I am glad you pointed it out for this specific article. I'm trying to get the English article on the Society to at least B class in the near future; while the museum (Zacheta) page is very useful, many inline citations are missing, which means I had to locate the citations myself for the (originally unreferenced) copied text and attribution escaped me. Will make sure to attribute all moving forward! Ppt91 (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review
Hey Ppt91, thankyou for starting the GA review on Güzel İstanbul. I am working on improving the article and fixing the issues that you have pointed out. Would you mind taking a look at Featured list candidates/50th Anniversary of the Republic Sculptures/archive1 as well as you are already involved in this topic now?--Gazozlu (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey @Gazozlu, thanks for your reply. Would you mind sending a message acknowledging the review process in the GA review talk page? It's best we communicate there to keep a record. Happy to look at the list when we're done with the GA nomination. Looking forward to working together. Ppt91 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

See also: —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

FYI
That account you reverted on Midwest FurFest is a sock of Kamen rider saber. If you see their edits, just go straight to AIV. Liliana UwU (talk / contributions) 01:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * LilianaUwU thank you, they were just blocked! Ppt91 (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Ppt91. 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. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Ppt91 (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2023 (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.

Rollback granted
Hi Ppt91. After reviewing your request, I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3APpt91 enabled] rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 14:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

You rolled back my edits without review and without clear case of vandalism
You first messaged me and said I had deleted an entire page, which I had not. You rolled back the good faith edits I had performed without proper review or even understanding of what I had edited. I would like my edits restored. Per the instructions you were given when you were given your rollback privilege by HJ Mitchell:

Hi Ppt91. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback: Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn. Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits. Rollback should never be used to edit war. If abused, rollback rights can be revoked. Use common sense. If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC) 136.175.164.197 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * 136.175.164.197 Hi, I believe that the situation has already been remedied and the relevant edits restored. I also left a reply on your page directly apologizing for the oversight. Because your account appeared as an IP user with a very large edit and what seemed like a non-NPOV edit summary on a controversial subject, I wanted to remedy the situation as soon as possible. I should have investigated further and it's my bad. Ppt91 (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphan page?
Hi. Q. Re your edit. Is this an "orhan" page?HistoricReminder (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@User:HistoricReminder The article has been proposed for deletion due to lack of notability for WP:GEOLAND; please let me know if you have any questions or if there is anything else that needs clarification. Ppt91 (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if it is that you already decided. But, I from my part, will explain. I originally came up with the idea upon seeing the red link in an existing page. I don't see the reasons for deleting. It's written about in books and Updated in news portals in that country. Regards.HistoricReminder (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @HistoricReminder Thanks for providing the update. The goal is to improve the article, so please feel free to continue working on the content and reliable sources. However, please keep in mind that the article needs to satisfy WP:GEOLAND notability criteria before it can be reviewed. That means that even if you provide reliable sources, they need to support content which goes "beyond statistics and coordinates" to meet notability requirements. As of now, the article is not sufficient to stand on its own. Good luck! Ppt91 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe it needs to be a stub. Please see this https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-0182(03)00276-1 In any case, Thanks for your contributions.HistoricReminder (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Alois Mayer
Hi I see you tagged this article at NPP for lack of sources and doubtful notability. The subject passes WP:NPOL because they were a member of a state legislature in a federal country, and two sources were sufficient to verify this. I’ve removed the tags and passed the article as patrolled. All the best Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Mccapra! Thanks, good catch and my oversight. I was thrown off by the government website being one of the sources and did not realize WP:NPOL in fact applied here until you pointed it out. Ppt91 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ashish Aviral
Hello Ppt91. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ashish Aviral, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio giuliano 09:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Salvio giuliano! Thank you. I was on the fence whether to go ahead with A7 or PROD and I appreciate your taking the time to explain your decision. Either way, the article most definitely needs a lot of work to maintain notability! Ppt91 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you and, to be fair, I'm not entirely sure he is notable enough to qualify for inclusion, but by design it's relatively easy to pass A7, because speedy deletion is reserved for the most obvious cases. For dubious cases such as this one, it's always best to PROD or send to AfD directly. Cheers. Salvio giuliano 20:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits, question
Hello!

How can I tell if a source is reliable? JohnDVandevert (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @JohnDVandevert Thanks for your message. You should follow rules outlined in WP:RELY and WP:VERIFY as it comes to sources. If you have doubts whether your source is reliable, you can always post in the article's talk page to seek other opinions. Also, I would recommend this list of frequently discussed sources and their level of reliability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions! Ppt91 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Mayor Quimby
I'm not sure how to add a source. I just watched the Addams Family episode and noticed it... Choggcom (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you add this as the source?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1buyF-2LjOc&feature=youtu.be Choggcom (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

At 2m54s Choggcom (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Choggcom (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Choggcom Thanks for your message; generally, YouTube is not considered a reliable source (per WP:RSPYT), except for when you are referencing content from major vetted channels that hold copyrights for that content. Given your link is to an original Adams Family video footage uploaded by MGM, a verified channel that appears to be the current copyrights holder for the movie, then it is likely it would be okay to use it is primary source to a character's quote etc. However, I would urge you to exercise caution and follow the guidelines for WP:VIDEOLINK and WP:YOUTUBE in regard to citing videos as sources and including them as external links. For more on how to cite properly, see WP:REFSTART. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions. Ppt91 (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Alaska Innocence Project
I believe you made a mistake. The editor I reverted has made similar edits to other articles and the edit I reverted was vandalism. Cheers, 47.227.95.73 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @47.227.95.73 Hi! This was the edit I wanted to revert; if it double crossed, then it was by accident. As long as the vandalized edit is gone, then it's all good. Thank you for alerting me to it. Ppt91 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Barbara Stanley (psychologist) is a lovely page. Well done.

BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC) 

Ways to improve Joan Wadleigh Curran
Hello, Ppt91,

Thank you for creating Joan Wadleigh Curran.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Thanks for the article about a notable artist! Try to make connections by finding another page to link to this article."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bruxton (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Bruxton thanks! That and the categories still need to be added (as I now realize), which I hope to address fairly soon. Ppt91 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC) Ppt91 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case: Please trim your statement
Hi, Ppt91. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @ToBeFree Thank you for your message and for allowing me to comment on what I see as a topical and very important case. Please know it is duly noted. I'll amend the responses as soon as possible to fit within the limit. Ppt91 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, take your time, and thank you. Face-smile.svg ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree Done. According my text editor, it all should now fit within 500 words (including my second reply). Ppt91 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me too! Thanks again! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Retaliatory AfDs
Thanks for your recent support at Articles for deletion/Ottopasuuna. On the matter of Officialangrydub's logic, check out Articles for deletion/No More Heroes (record label) where they incomprehensibly accused someone else of a retaliatory AfD with no evidence whatsoever. That may also be when they developed a dislike for me. They're a relative newbie and perhaps a stern talking-to is in order, but the fractured logic on display in all their recent AfD actions indicates many basic misunderstandings of how things work around here. It looks like you're much more knowledgeable than me about investigation/arbitration and the like, so I'll defer to you. Thanks again. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 17:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Doomsdayer520! Thanks for your note. I am honestly really happy to be in support of this, especially given the extent and the quality of your contributions. It's always nice to interact with like-minded and comprehensive editors. As for the frivolous AfD, you will see that I have improved the article as part of the deletion process and have requested withdrawal, which given reliability of added sources should be procedural per WP:AFD and WP:DISCUSSAFD.
 * This user's behavior is really getting to a point where it's becoming disruptive and if it persists, I think we might need to consider asking an admin to step in; however, I am hoping that it will be resolved, at least as far as this meritless and retaliatory AfD goes. I think that some people just can't wrap their heads around the idea of consensus and get really upset if a person they like doesn't have a page. It's unfortunate, because I am sure they could contribute well if they had just taken a step back and realized that truly all that other editors ask for is to simply follow WP:POLICY.
 * Also, and this fully in personal capacity and unrelated to the case, your quote of "I was once mentioned in a city newspaper" made me laugh so hard that I kind of just want to frame it and hang it on the wall. Gold. Ppt91 (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The newspaper thing really did happen, and I (under my given name) was mentioned in a reliable source!!! But it was not significant coverage so I am not notable no matter how important that newspaper is. I have used this story several times in AfD discussions when someone can't see the distinction between a brief mention and actual coverage. And speaking of hanging it on the wall, I was pestered for months by a small business that offered to cut out the newspaper article and turn it into a plaque. Thanks again. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 20:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and my apologies
Although I still strongly disagree with the consensus and the reasoning used to come to the conclusion of deletion, I appreciate your neutral and explanatory response which addressed the 'issues' at hand. I try to familiarize myself with the policies of Wikipedia and to my perception that looked like a clear. However, I never stumbled upon the WP:Point policy prior to your response, I do see I made a mistake trying to 'prove a point'. I can see clearly that I violated that policy and I do not in any way mean to disrupt or cause any harm to the Wikipedia community. I have a serious question though, how would one go about constructively creating a discussion in regards to observed encyclopedic bias?

In regards to the sources being questioned, I just still can't fathom how one of the most influential music companies isn't useful for establish notability. I didn't mean to disrespect any user and if I came off that way I completely apologize to everyone, I feel like my points were completely overlooked and that I was being bombarded by people trying to discredit something that has impacted many lives. I also don't think it's fair to say that a lack of mission statement automatically negates journalistic integrity or to automatically assume a lack of editorial oversight from such a large company. I can provide various examples of other sources that aren't held to that same level of scrutiny. It feels, whether intentional or not, that music artists and music related brands, more specifically ones in the Hip Hop genre, are held to a much higher level of scrutiny than anything other subject. I don't mean to overwhelm you with my personal feelings and conclusions, so I will leave it at this but any further clarification and constructive respectful responses would be very much appreciated as I hope to be a long lasting, frequent and contributor to Wikipedia. Officialangrydub (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Officialangrydub Thanks for reaching out here. There is no need to apologize to me; I did not take offense, though I certainly found your posts and general conduct toward other editors concerning. And I do believe the AfD should be withdrawn given improvements—which should be a formality really—and that it still came off as retaliatory (perhas Doomsdayer520 is the one deserving an apology here).
 * As for the rest of your message, I am not quite sure there was any targeted attack on your sources specifically. I was the original reviewer of the page and I even left you a pretty lengthy note regarding several issues, suggesting it might be nominated for deletion if these issues were not addressed. Another editor, likely noticing no improvements had been made, requested PROD which I supported. Because that was contested without edits, the next logical step was AfD. The entire process is designed so that editors have sufficient time to address outstanding issues, including during AfD nomination, and if it gets to a point where the article is no longer salvageable, deleting the article is a responsible thing to do. Note that the issues originally raised have not changed and more editors simply concurred with what was originally said.
 * Regarding the source, as a general rule of thumb, if you need to work really hard to convince multiple independent editors that the source is in fact reliable and verifiable, it is most likely not. No sources are perfect and there is obviously room for error, but WP:RELY criteria and guidelines are quite clear as it comes to establishing notability.
 * I also don't think it's fair to say that a lack of mission statement automatically negates journalistic integrity or to automatically assume a lack of editorial oversight from such a large company. I don't think this is a very productive approach. The burden of proof WP:BURDEN is on the editor; what you might want to ask instead is: what available information and/or data from that source (website) will ensure that it passes WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:SPONSORED? In each case, as you see, the possible lack of editorial oversight is a major concern. It might make more sense to wait and see if the subject becomes notable in the near future and is covered by, say, Billboard and another major publication in a way that clearly satisfies one of the WP:SINGER criteria.
 * I can provide various examples of other sources that aren't held to that same level of scrutiny. Again, this won't help verify the source or make claims any more believable. You should feel free to scrutinize all sources you encounter and then apply the same level of scrutiny to your own contributions. At the same time, keep in mind that sources used to reference or support additional claims in articles once notability has been established would often not stand on their own, eg. I can use the website of a well-known commercial gallery to reasonably verify the date or name of an artwork by its subject, but I could not use it just to establish their notability.
 * Finally, I would recommend assuming good faith, especially when you are dealing with multiple editors with some degree of experience (and especially reviewers) whose responsibility it is to ensure quality content. I hope this clarifies things. Ppt91 (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Dhayanidhi edit
Hi here's Dhaya's birth certificate. His mom's name is Kanthi. Not Gandhi. Please correct that as my edit was removed i think. I don't know how to. I'm new. https://drive.google.com/file/d/15GcG-fpyC0dWkZMosV4o9RScC-qlp5Y-/view?usp=drivesdk Rishibrahma (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Rishibrahma. Thanks for your message. Unfortunately, we cannot include links to Google Drive as a reliable source WP:RELY. I would highly recommend these links for some help with getting started on Wikipedia: WP:HI and WP:1ST. They will explain editing process in detail and also will show you how to cite sources correctly and which sources are considered reliable. I hope this helps. Please feel free to let me know if you have other questions! Ppt91 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you please download and add a jpg image of the birth certificate Rishibrahma (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15GcG-fpyC0dWkZMosV4o9RScC-qlp5Y-/view?usp=drivesdk

Maybe as it's Sunday the birth certificate portal is not working on my phone Rishibrahma (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Rishibrahma As mentioned above, you're not allowed to use private links for sources and you should not be asking other editors to open them. Please refer to WP:HELPDESK if you have any more questions. Ppt91 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you. Got another news reference.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/madurai/nothing-political-says-alagiri-after-udhayanidhi-stalins-meet/articleshow/97044649.cms Rishibrahma (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Rishibrahma (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!
-- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
Regarding this edit, please be aware that lack of an edit summary isn't an appropriate reason to revert an edit. Please review both MOS:GEOCOMMA and WP:REVERT ("Do not revert an otherwise good edit solely because an editor used a poor edit summary"). Grandpallama (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Grandpallama Thank you for pointing it out; I never mean to rush pending changes, nor revert them unless there is a good reason, and this was clearly an oversight. Noted and I appreciate your taking the time to let me know.  Ppt91    talk   22:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Ppt91. Thank you for your work on Biennale of Spatial Forms in Elbląg. User:Netherzone, 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.)

Netherzone (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Netherzone! Thank you! I am glad to see a fellow NPP who is in WP:VISUALARTS and appreciate the input. I wanted to get this one as soon as possible out so I could link it to another page, which is why it only has like two books and an article, but it deserves more coverage, ideally at least half of its counterpart in pl-wiki (which I actually think some serious cleanup, but that's a different story). Also, would love to potentially collaborate on any related topic, including women artists bios; Franciszka Themerson is one I've been wanting to tackle for a while now... Let me know if you'd be interested. Thanks again.  Ppt91    talk   17:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to meet you! It was interesting to learn about this Biennale, I think it is important to cover historical exhibition projects like this. And, yes, I'm up for collaborating on visual arts projects. I'll have a deep look at the Franciszka Themerson - on first glance, the biography section needs citations, as do the exhibitions. I also think the exhibits should be edited down to the most important ones, then contextualized in prose-form. Dates are not really needed except maybe the year. For example, the Pompidou Center, Whitechapel Gallery, Muzeum Sztuki, Muzeum Narodowe, Tate Britain, ICA, London are all really important, but they get lost in the long list of gallery shows. Maybe a couple sentences at the beginning of the section that she started showing in the 1950s and shown consistently throughout the decades. It's fascinating to learn about her work, thanks for creating the article. I wouldn't mind some help with this short article on the Sonsbeek exhibit series - it was groundbreaking for including early earthworks/land art. It's just a start and I've been meaning to get back to it to expand it. Netherzone (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Netherzone Thanks! I actually haven't created that one--just really like her work and she's quite under-researched. There was a show in London recently and I know her foundation is working hard to make more happen. It would be great to add to her notability. As for your suggestions for the article, I agree with all points and think they're a great place to start with to improve the page.
 * And I'd be very happy to jump in to help some with Sonsbeek page. Source-wise, it looks like there is already enough to work with, so I imagine a lot of it would be expanding the content. Did you have any specific ideas for sections? I think it'd make sense to add some stuff from "Ortiz Monasterio R. Sonsbeek Beyond the Limits. C Magazine. 2017;(133):72"(unless you had already looked at that and not found it that useful?) and definitely use Boettger, Suzaan. Earthworks: Art and the Landscape of the Sixties. United Kingdom: University of California Press, 2002. for the part about Smithson (if you'd like, I can write a concise paragraph to include on Smithson referencing a chapter from her book either today or tomorrow). Also, I was unaware until recently that apparently there had been a major curatorial conflict, which I think might be a good idea to include for recent events. Let me know your thoughts!  Ppt91    talk   18:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these suggestions on the Sonsbeek article, I agree with everything you mention, including the curatorial conflict. Please jump in when you find the time. I will do some work on the Themerson article starting with the exhibition section. Netherzone (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Netherzone Sounds like a plan. Will ping you when ready with the Smithson part, likely sometime later today/tomorrow. :)  Ppt91    talk   19:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the Exhibitions section on the Themerson article, renaming the section Selected exhibitions. It now includes only the most prestigious shows, and I've added a number of citations for verification (they are easy to find). I think some of these sources can be used again to verify content in the Biography section as well.
 * While working on it, I was reminded of the fact that other women artists who worked collaboratively with their husbands are not always so fortunate as to have their own article, for example, Emilia Kabakov who worked extensively with her husband for years. They are widely known as Ilya and Emilia Kabakov. She is completely overshadowed on Wikipedia by Ilya Kabakov, and is barely mentioned in his article, and is mentioned only once in the article List of art installations by Ilya Kabakov (1983-2000). Maybe this is another project that we could collaborate on? Netherzone (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Netherzone Nice, thank you very much! As for the Kabakov page, I was blissfully unaware of that mess. I saw few citations and my instinct was to re-rate it to C at first, which I did, but then something told me I should double check the sources. I just ran copyvio and this is what I found. I think I removed all of it, though if you could re-run, I'd appreciate it. The range for revdel is literally like 90% of the history, and that was just one of three sources. That's nuts.
 * That probably explains why she's mentioned 5 (!) times in the entire article. It looks like it was mostly written by one person more than 15 years ago and then more copyvios added and removed over that period. Honestly, I feel like the page should be moved to "Ilya and Emilia Kabakov," but there might be pushback due to his earlier work. It probably might be easier to just do a page of her own at this point and add any appropriate information in Ilya Kabakov lead and then expand. That would also mean we wouldn't need to seek consensus on move, because it is factual information that's been missing and warrants inclusion. Definitely on board. Let me get through Sonsbeek first and I'll at the very least make a draft/stub of Emilia Kabakov, which should not take me long.  Ppt91    talk   22:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Great research on this, and I'm glad you discovered the COPYVIO. I agree that it may be easier for us to simply start an article on her then start a requested move. I can start a stub on her and we can work on it at our leisure. Netherzone (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Stub article started on Emilia Kabakov. Netherzone (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail re: Joseph (model) article
Netherzone (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * PT, were you able to read this article:, it was unclear to me if you encountered a paywall. Netherzone (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Netherzone Yes! I also saved it as a PDF if you'd like me to forward? Also, the NYRB article ended up being very useful for a few chronological details--thanks again. :-)  Ppt91    talk   04:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened
Hello ,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

 * @Schwede66 How kind of you, thanks so much. As I mentioned earlier, it was a real pleasure working together and I look forward to learning more about your future projects. :-)  Ppt91    talk   14:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2835 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Gerda Arendt This is very generous and thoughtful! Thank you. I am a big fan of your work on music history and hope our paths will cross again soon. :-)  Ppt91    talk   01:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You made my day, again! - yesterday was the 150th birthday of Max Reger, mentioned here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2022 Dallas airshow mid-air collision
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2022 Dallas airshow mid-air collision 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2022 Dallas airshow mid-air collision
The article 2022 Dallas airshow mid-air collision you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:2022 Dallas airshow mid-air collision 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Completely understood. If other participating editors are willing to re-write the content and re-nominate it in the future, I'd be happy to participate in the process. This should have never been nominated, to be completely honest, and I wish I had taken a more thorough look at the work of others. :-) Will archive the thread for now. Thanks for putting in the work!  Ppt91    talk   21:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Mike Cahill (golfer)
Hello User:Ppt91,

I am Oogglywoogly, the creator of Mike Cahill (golfer). You noted that there are problems on the page and have made a number of tags. I am pretty much done with his page and would like concrete advice on how to improve the page.

The first tag refers to "unclear citation style." Sorry but what do you mean exactly? Most of these citations are from a search engine called newspapers.com - do you want me to "clip" the articles so the reader can see them? The second pertains to length and detail. This, I will admit, may be a legitimate concern as the page is relatively long and other users have noted this. I have skimmed both advisory articles you sent to me. Though I intend to read both of them from start to finish and take notes it would be nice if you could point me to details that are especially relevant to Cahill's page. And with the layout guidelines - sorry but I have no idea what you mean? I feel like I am conforming to all of the other golfer pages on WikiProject Golf.

Any advice would be helpful.

Sincerely,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Oogglywoogly! Thank you for your message. I have a few prior commitments today, but I'd be happy to follow up on my original feedback as soon as I have a moment (hopefully by tomorrow).  Ppt91    talk   16:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Ppt91,
 * Thank you for the quick response. When you have a chance, please respond to my original statement.
 * Thanks,
 * Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
 * @Oogglywoogly Thanks for your patience. Very happy to address theses questions.
 * The first tag refers to "unclear citation style." Sorry but what do you mean exactly? It may have been somewhat unclear from the tag itself, though I believe (hope) I had clarified in my original message that the issue was primarily with using the name newspapers.com, which is a paid repository and a database, as source title. While you do mention the name of the actual newspaper in each case, adding newspapers.com on top of it makes citations confusing for the reader (WP:CITESTYLE), especially that in some instances you use the via feature for both Google News as well as newspapers.com (see footnote 107, for instance). There is really no need to include that information at all per WP:SOURCELINKS, though if you do, I'd use the via route. It's a question of formatting and consistency more than anything else, which can understandably become challenging when using such a high number of sources.
 * The second pertains to length and detail. This is certainly a big issue and I recognize it's something that often comes with the territory when one has a vast knowledge of the subject--which you clearly do. I am not quite sure how this can be best addressed other than significantly cutting down on content to avoid WP:TMI and to stay focused WP:TOPIC. Perhaps reducing the number of sources even more would be another solution? I know you have already cut some of them, but there is still a tremendous amount of detail that might tire even the more seasoned golf enthusiasts.
 * And with the layout guidelines my comment and the tag related to how the page ia currently organized in terms of the division of content rather than the section layout itself; for example, subsection Professional career includes over 4100 words without a single subsection break. When you look at the table of contents in the article, the sections seem fine, though they do not, in fact, help you navigate the page, since most of the page is concentrated in a single, very long subsection. Per MOS:BODY, sections are meant to "enhance the readability of the article," which is why I had tagged it with a layout issue. Given you want to retain the section titles as they are now, per WP Golf, it seems that drastically reducing word count is probably the most effective (though I realize certainly not the easiest) solution. Finally, I think that images, even if just a few, would be welcome.
 * I hope I've addressed everything--please do let me know if I left anything out or if you have any other questions. And good luck!  Ppt91    talk   03:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ppt91.


 * Thanks for the response. I'll check out the relevant rules when I have more time (probably on Friday). For the citations issue, could you provide me an example of a newspapers.com citation (or any related citation) that is done well on Wikipedia? I think that would be very helpful. Likewise, with the length and detail issues (clearly the biggest issues on the page) I'll go over the Wiki rules later in the week.


 * Re sections: I actually have used subheadings before with a number of golfers. Usually I change the subheading when they change tours or start playing on a senior tour. But in Cahill's case there is no clear demarcation within his professional career so it's far harder.


 * If you could briefly respond that would be great. Again, I'll make to look over the rules in detail later in the week and will get back to you then.


 * Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
 * @Oogglywoogly If you'd like to keep the sourcelink i.e. newspapers.com that you can use the format you've already used a few times with the extension via like in "Stone, Peter (20 September 1971). "Its up to our golf selectors". The Age. p. 25. Retrieved 21 January 2021 – via Google News Archive." for instance. Nonetheless, I think it'd be best to follow WP:SOURCELINKS and not include the depository at all, but it's up to you.
 * As for the sections, I would think about some aspects of his professional career that you can either summarize or skip altogether. To give an example: just one decade of his career is covered in 5 substantial paragraphs with minute details, including many of his own quotes, which could probably be summarized in 2 paragraphs tops, even if it means focusing on fewer competitions and other events. Also, you could consider adding subsection titles to divide it up into periods.  Ppt91    talk   19:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello  Ppt91  ,


 * I have made a number of edits relating to length, detail, and citations on Cahill's page. I would like to know your thoughts.


 * Thanks!
 * Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly


 * @  Ppt91 , I am done with edits for the page of Mike Cahill (golfer). I would like to know your thoughts.
 * Thanks,
 * Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
 * @Oogglywoogly Sorry about my delay--will take a look whenever I have a moment and get back to you tomorrow latest. :-)  Ppt91    talk   19:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you!
 * Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Your GA nomination of Joseph (art model)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joseph (art model) 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 Tamzin -- Tamzin (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Ppt91. Thank you for your work on Louise Nevelson Plaza. User:Netherzone, 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.)

Netherzone (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Netherzone Thank you! I always appreciate a nice note from you. Also, I wanted to mention that I looked at the list of Native American women article suggestions you sent and would love to see how I can help in the near future. Unfortunately, I've been a bit swamped with several projects outside of en-wiki lately, though that sounds like really important work. Either way, please keep me posted on how the project develops! :-)  Ppt91    talk   17:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning...
regarding bludgeoning; it is off-point, but worthwhile in terms of relating your perception. For I am trying, at the BLP page in question, to persuade no one—rather, I am trying to arrive at a final conclusion, there, myself (see my last comment). The invitation in the repeat places was indeed what it seems—an invitation for people to clarify (as one has since done) that they see all three criteria being met, and so still stand by their argument. The question was asked because so often people toss in WP: guideline and policy references without full addressing what they actually fully and truly say. One editor, without prompting, parsed the three criteria, and that encouraged and intrigued me, and so I asked others citing that WP: standard, to look to it and do the same. If bludgeoning, it was of the professorial (almost Socratic) type, and rather than a Potterian "bludger", was done with feather pillow or the like. Cheers, all the best, and thanks for the warning about perceptions. 2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am married to an art historian who did their doctoral work on Cranach, with long archival periods spent in (what was then) East Germany, along the Eisenach-Erfurt-Weimar-Jena corridor. 2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 Thanks for you reply and glad to hear about a scholarly (spousal) connection. :-) (I've been trying to get some more recent scholarship to use in Lamentation (School of Lucas Cranach the Elder) and would always welcome suggestions.)
 * As for the discussion, I completely understand where you're coming from, though the problem with AfDs is that they tend to devolve into extensive debates, especially when it's a contentious topic. While I appreciate how receptive you are to the nuances of this situation, I would say that AfD is not the right place to go back and forth regarding policies. As WP:AFDDISCUSS suggests, it is best to make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves rather than adding multiple comments and repeatedly responding to others (even if it is cordial). None of this, of course, is criticism of your clearly thorough and analytical take on the subject.
 * ps. have you considered registering? It looks like you could be a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia!  Ppt91    talk   21:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph (art model)
The article Joseph (art model) 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:Joseph (art model) and Talk:Joseph (art model)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tamzin -- Tamzin (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph (art model)
The article Joseph (art model) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joseph (art model) for comments about the article, and Talk:Joseph (art model)/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 Tamzin -- Tamzin (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This article would make for a particularly interesting "Did you know", by the way. Since it'd be (AFAICT) your first nomination, it'd be "free", no quid-pro-quo review required. Could do either a serious fact like "... that Théodore Géricault's paintings of Haitian-born model Joseph are unusual in portraying him as 'an actual, distinct person'?", or something a bit quirkier like "... that Joseph may have been shipwrecked three times on The Raft of the Medusa?" Further possibilities abound! --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin That's a great suggestion. And let me reiterate my thanks for all your help with the article and for making the review process so welcoming! :-)  Ppt91    talk   13:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on this article! It was a really interesting read, and a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Passing Mother's Grave
It is a much better article now, so I thank you for that. Regarding the failure of the article, I have trouble understanding what more I could have done. The other reviews I have had were very specific, and in this one there were many general comments which I have completed to the best of my understanding. You said you have not heard from me in a while, but your last message to me was just two days ago (April 13) when you said I just made some extensive edits to the lead and the History section. If I may, I think it'll be much easier I go through the rest of the article myself and ping you when I am done. While it's closer to GA and the bulk of the information is there, there's still stuff that needs to be fixed and I think it would be much more time consuming to again list these suggestions here. So I assumed you would have some further comments or instruction, but instead the article was failed. I was willing to do everything in my power to satisfy the requirements. Thank you for your time. Bruxton (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Bruxton Thanks for your message and I am glad to know you think the article is much better now than it was before. I am, however, very surprised by the rest of your reaction. I had put in a great deal of work into the review, going far beyond GAR expectations, and have been patient and understanding with your process. Yes, last time I pinged you was two days ago, but that was after I had already responded regarding the additional article which you had trouble accessing. I also placed multiple tags throughout the article over the last week, which have sat there unaddressed for days. And that was after I had made detailed comments regarding content, which I felt were just rushed over to get the review done and promote the article to GA, which is not the point.
 * I was happy to keep the review open for a while, but I also didn't feel comfortable making such extensive edits (I rewrote the entire History section, because it gave very little context for where this kind of work originated from and who he was as an artist, despite my earlier suggestions) and given your silence, I simply assumed you put this on the back-burner and focused on other projects. At that point, keeping it open would mean rewriting much more than GAR really calls for, which is why I closed it.
 * Frankly, I wasn't really expecting this kind of message from you. It makes it seem like it was the GA icon, rather than the quality of content that mattered. And after so much effort, it just rubs me the wrong way that I have to spend time explaining myself.  Ppt91    talk   23:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your review was appreciated. I am on Wikipedia all day every day and this review began March 9. I have kept checking back at the GA review. I have no other GAs in the pipeline so this one has had my full attention. I was excited to take the article to this level, and not for the icon, but I want to write great articles. I have only nominated articles that I thought could get to GA. My previous reviews have been extremely specific, and this one was more general. Two days ago I read that you wanted to edit the article to speed things so I thought we were working toward the same goal. But then the article was failed today. It was shocking to have a failure because I would have done anything which was specifically required in order to make the article better. I will continue to edit the article, I am doing so now, and then I will renominate it. It might be that you and I just did not connect and maybe I will connect with another reviewer. Bruxton (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bruxton To say it was a "failure" is a hyperbole; that an article was failed during a review does not mean it is without merit. Rather, it's just a procedure, which can easily be repeated when ready. You seem to look at this process primarily from your own perspective with a bit too much hubris, i.e. being upset with me that the nomination hasn't succeeded rather than trying to understand where I might be coming from as a reviewer. It's obvious you want to create great content, and you have in many cases done exactly that, but your grudge seems entirely misplaced. I've done my best to be respectful, even with my final review note, and I can't say the same about you, even now with your "did not connect" bit. I see today that you have addressed all of the outstanding issues, including tags, and you have re-nominated the article, so I assume the next GAR will progress quickly. Perhaps when it does, you'll be able to actually appreciate my input and work.  Ppt91    talk   20:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you feel I have been harsh. I have repeatedly thanked you for your work. I work in DYK as a promotor, and it is often my own reviews of articles and checks of submitted nominations which can hold up nominations. I know it is not the same, but sometimes it can take months to pass a nomination - but I do everything in my power to assist the nominator and get the article through the process. I do not ever reject a submission when I have a willing nominator and a suitable article. With this GA review I have never pushed back against anything that you have suggested or that I understood. Without warning or notice you closed the nomination, and now you seem to be angry with me for being dismayed. I have no grudge against you and i do not think this is hubris; I was just surprised. I have already moved on, and I have just started two more articles related to this painting. Please do not take it personal. Bruxton (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bruxton Not angry at all, was just being transparent. Perhaps there was miscommunication on my end, as I never meant to catch you off guard or antagonize you in any way, so I am sorry you felt that way. May I suggest we burry the proverbial hatchet; there aren't that many prolific WP:WPVA editors and we could benefit from teamwork. If I come across a future nomination of yours, and I hope you will not be vehemently opposed to working together, I'll make sure to communicate better and that the outcome is constructive.  Ppt91    talk   21:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries or animosity on my part. I can tell you are a valuable editor. Bruxton (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Review of Museum of Oxford
Dear Ppt91,

Thankyou for taking the time to review my article for the Museum of Oxford. This is the first ever time that someone has provided me with a comprehensive review of one of my articles and I am grateful that you took the time to look over it. Best wishes, The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @The History Wizard of Cambridge. I appreciate your note and please feel free to let me know if I can be of any help as you continue to improve the article. It's a very interesting subject. Good luck with your work!  Ppt91    talk   01:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki 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 UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stazewski Grey White Relief 2 1962.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Stazewski Grey White Relief 2 1962.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stazewski Relief 18 1967.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Stazewski Relief 18 1967.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Henryk Stażewski
I looked at the artist now, and made some changes regarding image placement. Revert what you don't like. I tried to avoid "sandwiching" of text and displacement of headers. I suggest to split the two images that are now combined, and in general to shorten the image captions. I don't think it should look like a picture book where you get the whole story by following the captions ;) - The lead is on the (over-)detailed side of the FACs I've seen. I have no time to study the article in detail, but what I saw looks fine. You might go ahead with a peer review and see what others think. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Gerda Arendt Thank you very much! I appreciate your taking the time to do this. I know you've been busy with a lot of FAC work recently and it is really kind of you to help. In the meantime, I had a chance to talk to @Ceoil who went through the content from an art historical standpoint, providing very helpful feedback, and mentioned that it might be a good idea to give FAC a try. :-)  Ppt91    talk   18:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, but still think that - especially before a first FAC - a peer review is a good idea, - a bit more relaxed, and a chance to hear other voices. If nobody shows up - which happens - nothing is lost. We don't have to press for a certain date, or do we? - Another recommendation: review other FACs, to get known and to get a feeling for the others. For example CBS Building. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. There is no rush on my end. I'll do that and see what people say. :-)  Ppt91    talk   18:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gerda (who has bailed me out a nr of times on image placement), esp. that reviewing other FACs is the best way not to let the eventual nom die in the wilderness for lack of engagement. The 2nd time is easier (well, only slightly :)) Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Carlyle/GA2
Ppt91, the GA nominator Sinopecynic hasn't replied since 16 April and hasn't edited anything since 21 April. They've addressed all the structural issues; it's debatable whether "main" links strictly need to be added (my personal preference for subsidiary articles, with an attached summary paragraph or two, in a separate subsection), but they've added simple wikilinks to the split-off articles. That leaves the half-dozen "Minor details" which I'd not want to fail anything for. Would you like to finish off the GA? Otherwise, I could at a pinch say that since this was +/- minor I'd do it as reviewer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Louise Nevelson Plaza
Hello Ppt91, I happened to be downtown yesterday and shot a few photos of LN Plaza. They are cell phone pix, not professional images, but thought they might work as a gallery for the article. I've gone ahead added a gallery section and think it looks ok - if you think it's too much feel free to delete. It's a very nice article on an important woman artist, and altho I've been to the site numerous times, your article made me look at the sculptures themselves differently. Thanks for your work on improving the visual arts on Wikipedia! Netherzone (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure it's OK to use images of outdoor public art as "freedom of panorama", but I noticed one of the existing images in the article is up for deletion. If these get nominated, there is an editor who is experienced in image use policies I can ask for assistance and information. Netherzone (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Netherzone Wow, this was such a pleasant surprise! Thank you. I was going to take some photos myself, but have been so preoccupied with other stuff and am really happy to see these. I removed the other contentious one you mentioned in favor of your gallery. Also, I don't believe there is a case to be made here about any copyright infringement. The plaza did originally open in 1977 (before being renamed in 1978), which means the sculptures themselves are in the clear. Again, thanks so much! :-)  Ppt91    talk   17:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph (art model)
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Zaz zaporozhets citation
How exactly do I add a citation for an addition in the “in popular culture” section? None of the other entries in this section have citations. What makes mine removable compared to them? Thelastohioan (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Joseph on the main page!
Hello and congratulations on the DYK and the GA status - it's wonderful to see Joseph on the main page! It reminded me that I had recently seen a show at the Tate Britain on the Rossetti's and there was a section of the show on models of color from that time period that zeroed in on one of Dante Gabriel Rossetti works, The Beloved, and his studies using various models for the painting. I shot several photos of this section of the show - would they be of interest to you? If so, I'll upload them or email them to you along with the wall texts. Best regards, and as always thank you for your excellent contributions. Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Netherzone Always a pleasure to hear from you, and thank you so much. I'd be very curious to learn more about the work, which looks fascinating. Please do feel free to send the pictures! Email is great. :) What are you working on these days? I am trying to get Abstract art into better shape, though it's a big project and I'd love to hear your thoughts and whether you'd be interested in improving the article (I left some preliminary thoughts on the talk page there). I hope you're staying well.  Ppt91    talk   20:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Netherzone (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki
The article Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki for comments about the article, and Talk:Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki/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 UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

ReferenceExpander
Just a friendly heads-up in case you weren't already aware, since it's installed on your common.js: Careless use of ReferenceExpander has caused serious problems. It's currently at MFD, and a large cleanup project is underway to repair the citations damaged by the script. I and several other users have !voted that the script be deleted or disabled, and I wouldn't recommend using it at all unless you thoroughly check every reference it modifies against the previous revision. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation of the script's issues, has provided an excellent summary at the MFD. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 05:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Portrait of Count Stanislas Potocki
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

survey wikipedia usages / translation in Polish
Hi @Ppt91

thank you very much for reaching me! Yes, we would love to have the survey translated in Polish, so welcome onboard! The research is presented here You can add your name for the Polish translation (I've created the line), we are hoping to have the survey in English for you to evaluate/discuss, and then translate, by the end of March (French should be available a bit before if you are interested ;-) )

Jullienn (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jullienn Thanks! That's great, I am very happy to help with the survey on pl-wiki. I just added my name to the list. Also wanted to clarify if there is any work to be completed before the survey is ready for translation? I saw that village pump discussions are currently taking place in other participating wikis linked on the research project page (for example, here in fr-wiki) and was wondering if this is something you'd like me to do to gather similar feedback from the Polish Wikipedia community. Either way, glad to be a part of this and am looking forward to working together!  Ppt91    talk   18:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, @Ppt91 thank you!
 * Well, yes, that would be super great to have feedback from the pl-wiki community about what they are wondering, wanting to explore; even if, of course, the size of the questionnaire has to be limited.
 * However, we plan to ask people if they agree to be re-surveyed, which would open the room for more precise questions.
 * Do you read French (it will be the first questionnaire draft ready, you know)
 * Jullienn (talk) Jullienn (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jullienn I'll be happy to draft a short post on pl-wiki to see if there are any important issues the community would like to raise as of now and then can update as we're moving along. I'll link the discussion to the research page--does that sound good? As for French, alas, not able to help (but it is on my learning list for the near future :)). Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the pl-wiki post and will take care of it as soon as I get a go-ahead from you. Thanks again!  Ppt91    talk   16:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ppt91 go ahead full speed! Jullienn (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Ppt91
 * before the week-end, here is, finally, the test version of the questionnaire,
 * in French: https://questionnaires.marsouin.org/index.php/487863?lang=fr
 * And in English: https://questionnaires.marsouin.org/index.php/487863?lang=en
 * If you want to look at it, test it, feedback on it, etc.
 * Once it is ok, I'll create copy version of this questionnaire, for the translation in other languages (as much copy as language)
 * For each language, the questionnaire will thus be propose in the language and in English, so you have time before starting the translation!
 * Have a nice week-end Jullienn (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jullienn So sorry for my delay—I think these look great. I did not receive much feedback from the pl-wiki community, sadly, so happy to start translating the content you provided as soon as needed. Let me know what the next steps are! Thanks so much. :-)  Ppt91    talk   17:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Ppt91
 * No worry, you'll do it when you can! In one week the French/English model will be frozen and I'll send you the questionnaire for translation. We are figuring out what is easier to do so (XML file, access to the questionnaire on limesurvey...)
 * I keep you posted
 * N. Jullienn (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Ppt91
 * I've done a google trad of the survey, and here it is; https://questionnaires.marsouin.org/index.php/826633
 * I can send to you the pdf in polish and in english if it helps, and I have a doc for you to make the modification. But you can feedback by email if it's easier. Anyhow you can contact me at nicolas.jullien (at) imt-atlantique.fr
 * thanks again for you help!
 * N. Jullienn (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Ppt91
 * an easier way to correct the google made translation is to go to this file: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t0r8v59gYlPLT9pUll_5TEslN77SegbsDN3KQ1pJkI8/edit
 * (I can give you access or you do it on your computer). don't forget to "on" the modification tracker
 * Thanks! Jullienn (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jullienn Great, thank you! I'll get to this soon and let you know when finished. :)  Ppt91    talk   03:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Ppt91
 * I hope it's not to difficult, that the translation has not alterated too much the meanings. Let me know if you need to discuss some points
 * Nicolas Jullienn (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello@Ppt91
 * Just to tell you that the survey should be online today for the first languages (Polish is scheduled the 18th). I hope this would work for you!
 * The banner text is here. It'll very probably need corrections as well.
 * Tell me if I can help you (helping me ;-) ) Jullienn (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jullienn Sorry for my delay! Yes, I should have this ready for you by May 17 latest, would one day prior to the upload deadline be ok? Let me know if you need it sooner. I appreciate your patience.  Ppt91    talk   19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ppt91 hello, no worries it's ok; if you use the shared file, I'll start managing you corrections before, so we will sure be on time Jullienn (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Ppt91,
 * have you make it to find the time? Jullienn (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jullienn Thanks for your patience. I just edited the questionnaire landing page to improve language and clarity on https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t0r8v59gYlPLT9pUll_5TEslN77SegbsDN3KQ1pJkI8/edit. It's going painfully slow, for which I apologize, but things have been incredibly busy for me over these last few weeks. I'll try to have all of it reviewed by the end of the weekend.  Ppt91    talk   19:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ppt91 Don't worry, as you may have seen in the banner request discussion, we have been slowed down (mainly for a mis calculation of the needed software capacity on our side), so end of the week end is just fine for me!
 * I know it's long to figure out exactly what we wanted to say, in addition to correcting the bad translation! Jullienn (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (and it's not as you had only this to do ;-) ) Jullienn (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Ppt91,
 * Have you been able to go forward with the translation? No stress, I want to open the Polish around the end of June if you think it's a good period, but just to know (and send a support signal ;-) ) Jullienn (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023
Hello , Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by  and  with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of, and also some patches from , has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and on IRC.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Your GA nomination of Summer Days (Georgia O'Keeffe)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Summer Days (Georgia O'Keeffe) 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 Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Ppt91. Thank you for your work on 2 Broadway murals (Lee Krasner). User:Netherzone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I 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.)

Netherzone (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Netherzone How nice to hear from you! Thank you so much for your note. I hope to have more time to work on that page in the near future. It's a fascinating work and from an important period of Krasner's career. Please feel free to contribute whenever you have a moment. :)
 * ps. I recently responded, albeit with a slight delay, to your other email and have been wondering how things are on your end. Would love to get an update!  Ppt91    talk   21:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed your email, I don't check my WP mail very frequently but will look for it and respond. Hope all is very well with you, I'm doing well and have been enjoying the early summer days. Netherzone (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Summer Days (Georgia O'Keeffe)
The article Summer Days (Georgia O'Keeffe) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Summer Days (Georgia O'Keeffe) for comments about the article, and Talk:Summer Days (Georgia O'Keeffe)/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 Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Sent by using  at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. Help copy edit. Thanks you. 115.76.249.90 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Georgia
Hi, I have been feeling bad that I may have pushed you and others away from the article. It seems very likely now to me that my actions, like collapsing conversations and making changes to close out to-do items, pushed you and others away. I am going to totally step back and hope that you feel like improving the article in ways that you find are important. I really appreciated working with you. You provided good, thoughtful approaches and work really well with others.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @CaroleHenson Not at all! In fact, you were the one to coordinate the whole thing. It would not have happened without your excellent oversight and I am very grateful for it. That said, I am sorry I haven't been as active in the last few days; it's mostly due to several impending deadlines IRL, but I'd love to continue working on the article together. It might take us a while to get it up to GA, which is totally fine and so worth it! I hope you still feel the same way. :-)  Ppt91    talk   18:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you are very kind. Yes, it would be lovely to get the article to GA class. For now, I will take a bit of a breather. When you are ready to work on getting the article ready for GA nomination, let me know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henryk Stażewski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blok.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to put this gently
At the top of your talk page you ask editors to read a long list of policies before posting here. Why is that? Do you think you followed those policies when you posted to another editor's talk page recently? Whether you appreciate the editor who rage quit or not, they demonstrably got quite ugly about being asked to meet a very normal requirement, and more that once, which wasn't exactly great, and no doubt was upsetting for all involved.

To then accuse another editor of "piling on", when they brought the case themselves over dismissiveness they've been dealing with for months, strikes me as also pretty wrong. Correct me if I am mistaken, but did you not essentially second-guess an editor in his area of specialization and say that some other article not being discussed was just fine? The swipe about GA articles was gratuitous and irrelevant also. Not everyone is involved in content creation or is interested in navigating the MoS intricacies involved in the GA process. I have also seen GA and FA articles that were simply awful in terms of their accuracy and coverage despite their polished MoS compliance. I understand a style manual, don't get me wrong; I have spent years enforcing one. But it is not the only criterion for the value of an editor's contributions. This is a misconception on your part and you should not belittle other editors in this way. I guarantee you that those GA articles did not have bare urls.

If you think I am reading all this wrong, well, ok fine. I don't really have a dog in this fight but I was there and I saw you patronize a very fine editor I am working with right now, who had merely done his wikijob. And so I am asking you to reflect. There will not be a quiz as to the conclusion you reach and I am going to assume that you, who asked for empathy for another editor, will respect the fact that I am doing the same. If you think I am mistaken to do so, realize that I think the same of you. I don't hold your empathy against you, quite the contrary -- it isn't fun to see hurt feelings -- but creating more does not improve things and empathy should be for everyone. All we can do is try to make things better not worse. Peace out; I hope you will hear this in the friendly tone of disappointment that I intend. Feel free to refrain from pointing out some area in which I am not perfect either; I already have plenty of people who do that for me and am probably already well aware. Elinruby (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Elinruby Thanks for posting here and I am going to assume that you, who asked for empathy for another editor, will respect the fact that I am doing the same yes, I absolutely do respect it. Despite my short tenure here, one of the things I really have come to appreciate is the transparency of communication.
 * Regarding my message, I think you might be misreading at least some of it and I would be happy to explain, also because I really am not looking for an open conflict or to antagonize anyone. The reason why I wrote on Scope creep's talk page was because I felt that @Ɱ did not receive nearly the amount of support that their work warranted. It seemed to me that their bad temper was used as a primary reason to take away a user right they had for years almost as a punitive measure. People kept saying how it was not such a big deal, but then why do it in the first place? Throughout the ANI thread, several editors pointed out Ɱ's recent behavior while very few (save for @Randy Kryn and perhaps a few others) stood up for what is, by and large, high quality content. I missed the ANI abd the discussion has since been closed, which is why I posted a message on Scope creep's talk page.
 * I am a bit surprised that now at least two editors (SC and yourself) saw my message as an attempt to point out editorial flaws, rather than a defense of Ɱ's work. My intention was not to belittle SC's contributions (note that I prefaced my comment about GAs and FAs with acknowledging their extensive input across many areas of en-wiki over the years), but to simply point out that recent blunders and bare URLs in Ɱ's articles are insufficient reason to drive them away. I stand by my opinion that the ANI was completely unnecessary and seemed retaliatory, although that does not mean I am in any way disrespecting SC's work. I also never said SC was piling up; I just said that it is easy to pile up on someone who has already been cornered; that might not be the correct impression of all of Ɱ's behavior but it was the impression I had at the time. As for Feel free to refrain from pointing out some area in which I am not perfect either, I certainly have no reason to do so and generally I try to steer away from drama. Other editors often point out "flaws" in my work as a means of improving its quality and, unless it's clearly out of spite, I don't take offense. In the few instances where I may have lost my temper, I tried to patch things up as soon as I could.
 * Look, I recognize that there was no perfect way to handle this and I am okay with @Scope creep not wanting anything to do with me moving forward. I don't like to make enemies and I contemplated whether it made sense to speak up in the first place (I had a feeling it might go the way it did), but what happened to Ɱ saddened me and I felt that the community did not do a good job at handling the problem. As I said earlier, I absolutely respect your right to publicly defend another editor and my intention was to do the same, despite knowing there might be some collateral damage as a result.  Ppt91    talk   14:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, you have not made an enemy. I just think you might be looking at this wrong. I actually wanted to not post here again lest it be seen as bludgeoning so if I am myself making you feel uncomfortable then please just say so and we can just agree to disagree. In fact I am gone unless you specifically ask me a question. But you seem to actually doing the self-reflection I asked you for, so bear with me for one more post; this is a learning experience for me (too?)


 * The "feel free to refrain" was intended as a reference to your remark about GAs. I do think you were wrong to make it, but I should have phrased that otherwise, I was thinking earlier, because it could easily have been read as I'm over here saying stuff about you but don't you dare criticize me ;) but it sounds like you didn't take it that way and if that's the case then thank you for that. But let's get back to the original topic and step through it. Nobody is saying the bare urls were ok, right? The correct response when someone points out a problem like that with an article one has written is not "I am an experienced editor."


 * Better answers might include "I disagree" but that doesn't really apply here. Alternatives might be "oh yeah I meant to fix that" or "yeah you're right" or even "I am getting to that". I know I have had flashes of irritation I have later had to apologize for, as mentioned I am nt an ideal editor, but letting ego goad one into a huge public hissy fit over the idea that possibly there might be room for improvement is a whole other matter. To take an unrelated example, I stopped trying to work in categories because of Brownhairedgirl but I was deeply upset when she got indeffed over all the people she had done that very same thing to, because she was trying in her way to make things better. But really, if you can't conceive that you might be possibly have made a mistake is that not a problem? I see the same dynamic at work in this case. If the references are a problem why not just learn to use cite ref? And yet 14 months later it was still a matter of "I am an experienced editor" and like BHG it was tragic in the Greek sense of the word because it was completely avoidable but for the inability to simply take input on something as cut and dry as a reference standard.


 * I am sure you did see someone feeling cornered and I suspect that most people at ANI do feel that way, but at the risk of repeating myself, the editor was there because they were demonstrably wrong and refusing to admit it. And all that happened to him was that he is no longer assumed to never be wrong. Much worse has happened to people at ANI, take it from me. (Ideally Scope creep could have simply ignored you also rather than react the way he did let's get that out of the way.)


 * It was really the GA thing that made me bring this up. It's an attitude that seems to be gaining in prevalence and I for one would rather see an accurate article in bad English, because I can fix thos -- and do fix them all the time -- than the shiniest and most compliant FA where we can't get errors of fact and tone corrected because someone is frantically reverting to keep it frozen in its FA but erroneous state, which is a problem I have also had. Maybe SC and I should promote the article we're working but it seems like a bit of a waste of time to me. I personally am much more interested in what it says. Anyway, I am done unless you tell me you want to continue this conversation. I hope it is coming through as intended -- I am not an enemy, I don't do enemy stuff and I commend you for defending someone that you thought deserved it, even if I disagree. Have a good day.Elinruby (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elinruby Thanks for your thoughtful response.
 * Fyi, do not condone Ɱ's recent conduct which I emphasized even in my original post. That said, I think one needs to also recognize that whatever incivilities and editorial errors Ɱ was recently responsible for had already been addressed in the original thread on the NPP discussion board. To follow up with an ANI instead of leaving it be (which would help deescalate it) seemed, at least to me, entirely unwarranted and punitive. The fact that it was opened by an editor who had previously been admonished for their misuse of NPP rights against that very user only adds to it. But as you suggested, perhaps it's best to just agree to respectfully disagree on that matter.
 * Regarding GA, I realize that my original phrasing may have come off as judgmental, but I was not trying proclaim anyone's editorial superiority. And while I agree that some GAs might not be up to par, the community of active GA reviewers and FAC coordinators are committed and thorough editors whose work, based on my relatively short activity here, is mostly of very high quality. That does not mean, however, that numerous other well-written yet un-assessed articles are worth any less.
 * Again, I appreciate your taking the time to clarify some things. I hope that, ultimately, the result of our exchange will be net positive and help bring more valuable content to this project. :-)  Ppt91    talk   17:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the above does not contain a question I will agree to disagree on the matter of whether it is proper to take a failure to correct a simple issue to ANI after being stonewalled for 14 months.
 * May I ask a question of my own? Lest it seem its own swipe at you I would like to mention that I did not realize that you did GA evaluations when I wrote that. But since you do, is there a re-evaluation process, and if so is it so unusual that it would seem contentious to invoke it? I ask on my own behalf, about an article that has been bothering me. If you don't know, that's fine. Maybe you could answer on my talk page if you would like to archive this thread. Pax. Elinruby (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Ppt91. Thank you for your work on Mural (Julie Mehretu). User:Tails Wx, 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.)

Tails  Wx  01:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Tails Wx Thank you, very kind of you!  Ppt91    talk   17:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green GA Editathon October 2023 - Around the World in 31 Days
 Hello :

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a  month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

New pages patrol newsletter
Hello ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for Mural (Julie Mehretu)
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mehretu Julie Empirical Construction 2003 MoMA.png
Thanks for uploading File:Mehretu Julie Empirical Construction 2003 MoMA.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
 Hello Ppt91:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

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

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

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

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

Requesting some article expansion help
Greetings  @Ppt91

Hi, I am User:Bookku, On Wikipedia I engage in, finding information and knowledge gap areas in Wikipedia and promoting expansion of related drafts and articles. Came across some of your contributions.

Requesting your visit to:


 * Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies
 * Draft:Irrational beliefs needs restart with WP:REFUND/G13


 * Also requesting your visit to Draft:Re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia - draft article mainly intends to focus on academic and may be some intellectual discourse in the media about remosqueing of Hagia Sophia.

Since last one year there is more academic literature on the topic which seem to need coverage hence requesting your help expand the topic areas if you find the topics interesting. Wish you very happy Wikipedia editing.

Thanks and warm regards &#32;Bookku   (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Steven Tananbaum
Hi Ppt91, I am working to update the page of Steven Tananbaum, art collector and museum supporter. As you are a member of WikiProject Museums with interest in art and biographies, I was hoping you may want to review my edit request on the article talk page and the exchange there. I'd be happy to discuss any of the points and appreciate your assistance. Thanks, Alexandra at L Strategies (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mural (Julie Mehretu)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mural (Julie Mehretu) 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 UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Ppt91, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Schwede 66  05:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louise Nevelson Plaza
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Louise Nevelson Plaza 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 SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louise Nevelson Plaza
The article Louise Nevelson Plaza you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Louise Nevelson Plaza for comments about the article, and Talk:Louise Nevelson Plaza/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at 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 SusunW -- SusunW (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mural (Julie Mehretu)
The article Mural (Julie Mehretu) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mural (Julie Mehretu) for comments about the article, and Talk:Mural (Julie Mehretu)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at 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 UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Henryk Stazewski 14 1973.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Henryk Stazewski 14 1973.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stazewski Nr 49 1976.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Stazewski Nr 49 1976.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

n'ayant pu m'écrire bien, ils m'ont écrit mal</i>
The phrase n'ayant pu me corrompre, ils m'ont assassiné popped into my head for some reason today, and I wondered whether there was a redirect from that to The Death of Marat. I was surprised to find not only no redirect, but no mention of the phrase, and in fact nothing about the Louvre copy (where that phrase appears) other than a single sentence about its existence. What content we do have on the painting is, well, disappointing. Since my own content pipeline is backed up several months right now, and I've seen your work before on French art of that era, I thought I'd put it on your radar, either if you're interested or if you know someone who might be. Easily GA material with some work, seemingly Quarter-Million-Award-eligible. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe) 23:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Tamzin, I hope you're doing well!
 * Thank you for thinking of me for this and my apologies for a ridiculous delay in replying to you. I have been on a semi wikibreak due to dissertation deadlines and will not be as active likely until the end of the calendar year. That being said, I would not be not opposed to spacing this out as a long-term project.
 * It's definitely worth the time and I am drawn to the work for a variety of reasons, from David's own politics to stimulating scholarship it has since generated, including T.J. Clark's reading (which is only briefly mentioned). I'd love to continue this conversation! :)  Ppt91    talk   19:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Gerda Arendt Sweet Gerda, thank you. I apologize for my delayed reply, but I have not been as active recently. I hope you're staying well. :)  Ppt91    talk   19:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)