Hello LittlePuppers! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! User:Chongkian (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

DYK nomination of Evangelical Heritage Version[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Evangelical Heritage Version at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Lionel(talk) 04:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Evangelical Heritage Version[edit]

On 9 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Evangelical Heritage Version, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Evangelical Heritage Version of the Bible was translated by a group of Lutheran volunteers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Evangelical Heritage Version. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2018[edit]

Information icon Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Answers in Genesis. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for volunteering your time and for doing an amazing job with dealing with that IP hoping user and for keeping the vandalism off of Charlotte Crosby and Hailee Steinfeld. I just want you to know that your effort, your time, and your diligence do not go unnoticed and we appreciate it very much. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Oshwah! I'd like to thank you as well for reverting many of the other edits and doing what I could not in blocking them (and all your efforts elsewhere in fighting vandalism). Do you know of any good tools for fighting vandalism that don't require rollback permissions (and preferably run in a browser)? AWB, Huggle, and STiki are standalone applications which require rollback rights, Igloo works in a browser but requires rollback rights, and many other tools are very outdated. I've found that RTRC doesn't really fit what I want (being designed for page patrollers), and Snuggle gives me errors (I don't know what permissions it requires), so I generally end up using the recent changes feed (usually edits with any of a large amount of tags, like this, or with some general bad faith or vandalism filters), in conjunction with Twinkle, but I feel that there must be a more efficient way to do this. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're doing great work here! I hope you know that. Well, I've been patrolling recent changes for about 10 years now - obviously a lot has changed since 2008 ;-). Do you have Twinkle enabled? If not, go to your preferences and flick the switch on - it's extremely helpful with making routine RCP tasks for you. Have you seen or gone through this list of RCP tools yet? There are a good number of different tools that will automate recent changes patrolling for you, and those do not require rollback. Give some of these a try, and let me know if you have any questions. The best advice I can give you is to find a tool that you personally like and are comfortable with using and without making mistakes. And remind yourself to leave a message on my talk page in about a month from now. If you're reverting vandalism and warning users appropriately, and filing good reports to AIV - I'll have no problem granting you some user rights. Keep up the good work, and please let me know if you have any questions or need help. I'll be happy to lend you a hand. Thanks again for doing what you're doing. Happy trails! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I do have Twinkle enabled, and I've found it to be quite useful. Thanks for that link - I've seen many of those before, and haven't used them due to most of them either not being browser-based (which unfortunately is a major inconvenience for me) or a few of them requiring rollback, however I did find that Lupin's Anti-vandalism tools did everything I want, so I tried them out and have been using them for pretty much the last 2 hours, and they've been working out well, so I'll probably keep using them. Thanks again! LittlePuppers (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

José Molinas[edit]

Just a heads up -- I declined your speedy deletion request for José Molinas, because it was not a broken redirect. Not sure what you were going for there...----Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fabrictramp: Yes, the article it was redirecting to was created after I tagged that - I just noticed in my watchlist. Thanks! LittlePuppers (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soleares (poems)[edit]

Please don't be so hasty in tagging when something is obviously just created, esp. by someone who has written an article or two. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Drmies: My apologies - I was a bit too hasty in tagging that. However, may I suggest that you make use of the draft namespace before publishing articles? LittlePuppers (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but no. Please check my list of created articles to see if indeed I know what I'm doing. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drmies: I'm in no way meaning to imply that you don't know what you're doing (I think being an admin and having 4 FAs speaks for itself in that regard), I'm just suggesting that if you'd prefer not to find any secondary sources before publishing an article, maybe you should draft it first. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LittlePuppers, I should really be in bed, but one of my newly created articles got rapidly tagged a while back, so I wondered ... if you're using the new pages feed or Special:New pages, are new articles by those of us with the autopatrolled right still shown as already reviewed or without the yellow highlighting? The other editor was unaware that the absence of highlighting is supposed to be a message to new pages reviewers that the article has either already been checked or has been created by one of us warhorse article writers. This may all have changed now that new page reviewer is a special right and uses a special feed. Of course, you may have just seen it at Recent Changes. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yngvadottir: I did see it at recent changes, however looking at Special:NewPages I don't see any highlighting there. Special:NewPagesFeed does shows review/unreviewed. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drmies: What exactly do you mean by "patronizing" (I'm assuming by "new" you mean anyone who's been here for a shorter period than yourself) in this regard? LittlePuppers (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Srsly? You're not just tagging too quickly, but you're also telling me what it is I should do when writing an article. I see you wrote an article, and not a bad one, and along the way you got a nice bit of assistance from other editors. Article writers need help: they need other editors who have different expertise and knowledge and who help improve articles. Experienced editors do not need to be told that they need references, nor do they need to be suggested that they draft it first. Sorry, but I am still struck by the arrogance and a-holishness of "I'm just suggesting that if you'd prefer not to find any secondary sources before publishing an article, maybe you should draft it first", which is condescending. You have not earned the right to make that kind of a remark, not to me and not to anyone else either. Don't ping me again; I got better things to do. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rollback granted[edit]

Hi LittlePuppers. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use 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 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 troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ Amory (utc) 19:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Amorymeltzer, I'll keep that in mind. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Regarding the IP we both had words with earlier, it's best to not play their game (and that's just what it is to them) by engaging in a back-and-forth discussion with them about their editing or their edits. I know I started it, but after it became clear they were just trolling, and after telling them not to waste our time, I intended to leave it there (especially since you had already requested they be blocked). See WP:DENY for a discussion of why it's generally better not to give them the satisfaction of an argument. General Ization Talk 00:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@General Ization: Yes, that's very good advice (and it was largely why I did eventually stop). I don't think that's your fault whatsoever, it's definitely something I could have handled a lot better. Thanks again for the advice and all you do on Wikipedia. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assessment Luang Por Dattajivo[edit]

Thanks for your assessment here. Any tips?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham: I didn't really look through it very thoroughly - that was largely based on the ratings for other wikiprojects. Looking at it further, I raised up to C-class - it's definitely at least worthy of that, and I'm a little hesitant to rate things above that (though it may well be worthy of it), because it's a bit outside of my area of expertise. I'll look at it further and give more advice soon - probably this afternoon or tonight. LittlePuppers (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, LittlePuppers!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Farang Rak Tham: Apologies for not getting to that last night, I've been very busy recently with exams at school and various other things - I'll get to it as soon as I can. LittlePuppers (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, LittlePuppers.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Farang Rak Tham: Again, apologies for taking so long - I should be back to a more normal schedule now. I've looked through it more thoroughly, and here's a list of various comments:
  • Is there any more recent news about him being de facto caretaker as of December 2016? Additionally, this could use some more explaining (why do they say that, etc. - not much more is said about that in the body).
  • Various places could use some rewording - I'll look into that, or perhaps request a copyedit.
  • You should probably mention him by name (as opposed to only using pronouns) in the first paragraph of the "early life" section (again, something I'll probably look at).
  • You refer to Khatha as "Thai black magic" - is that a common (and supported by references) name for it? It's not mentioned in the linked article, but that is definitely a stub.
  • Should the "chi" in "Mae chi Chandra" be capitalized?
  • Overall, a little bit of updating would be nice, if anything has (or hasn't) happened in the past year or two.
In addition, I've made a few minor edits for grammar and the like, and I'll continue to do so over the coming days. Overall, it's a very nice article. LittlePuppers (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are very useful tips and edits, LittlePuppers! Thanks. I will get to it as soon as I finish an article of mine that is currently GA reviewed. Thanks again!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, Farang Rak Tham! I'm more than happy to help. Buddhism isn't really my area of expertise, but I'll look at the prose and see what I can do about that in the coming days. LittlePuppers (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you ever done a GA review, LP?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I haven't. LittlePuppers (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Luang Por Dattajivo has been nominated for GA at WP:GAN#REL, if you are interested to review.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, Farang Rak Tham, but I'm going to have to decline. I've considered it before, but if (or when) I do, I'd probably like to stick with topics I'm familiar with, especially initially - and as I've said before, I'm not especially familiar with Buddhism. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, no problem.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have done some edits now, responding to your suggestions.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are now a pending changes reviewer[edit]

Hi LittlePuppers! I've been running into you in recent changes patrolling and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer user rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling, and you consistently view and undo vandalism and disruption to articles. I believe that this user right would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tool. Instead of having you formally request the pending changes reviewer right at WP:PERM, I just went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and either accept them to be published and viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them so that the pending changes are not published.

Keep in mind these things regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any 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 additional "status" on Wikipedia nor does it changes how you can edit articles (obviously).
  • You'll generally want to accept pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself - especially those that are vandalism or have neutral point of view or BLP issues.

Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:

I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface you're used to, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into any troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the user rights and accepting or reverting pending changes. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, contact me and I'll remove it. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually just requested this, so thanks a lot, Oshwah! LittlePuppers (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh shit... well.... there you go.... LOL ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you acccept the pending change of Janet Jackson[edit]

The page was corrupted after Kimora's first edit about a complete navbox. May you please explain how did you accept that edit? It is lucky that the second problematic edit was dealt and I can revert both.--1233Talk 03:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies 1233, I saw that |class=expanded was removed (which doesn't seem to change anything?) and upon first glance the navboxes appeared okay (why was that one at the end?) but I missed that )) was removed as well. Thank you for taking care of that, and I'll be more careful to make sure things like that don't happen again in the future. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steve Marshall (writer)[edit]

Please look carefully at what you are reverting. You should not have restored that edit without immediately fixing the referencing problem. A claim that someone was convicted and sent to prison sourced to a malformed (and thus unviewable) external link is not acceptable. The IP could probably have claimed that the removal of the material was justified on WP:BLP grounds. Meters (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Meters: Ah, my apologies about that. I only looked at the diff, which seemed to be removing a referenced statement, and didn't notice the referencing problem. I'll watch more carefully in the future. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. The next editor to revert it moved it to a reference while I was doing the same thing, so we had eyes on it. I'm just surprised this has been going on for so long. Meters (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Functional GI disorders[edit]

I am unclear as to why you deleted my addition of "also known as disorders of gut-brain interaction", as clinicians are now referring to FGIDs with this term since the latest clinical research shows that the brain is very much involved with disorders of the gut, so much so that neuromodulators (treatments that work in the brain) are now being used to treat FGIDs.

I am also unclear why you did not allow my deletion of the information on mast cells. The reference from 2015 needs to be deleted and the information linking mast cell involvement to the FGIDs is now known to be false. A reference from 2015 in the clinical world can definitely be considered obsolete.

Not sure what your clinical background is, but I assure you, my above reasons would be backed by the world's expert on FGIDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, for any future contributions please provide reliable sources per our guidelines for medical articles. Additionally, please do not add links to external websites, such as yours to the Rome foundation, in the middle of the article. If they are relevant, they may be added in the external links section, or they can be added as a reference. Thank you. LittlePuppers (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes to the Greenstone Page[edit]

Hi "LittlePuppers"Kristinamiousse (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly I am new to Wikipedia in the editing function. I work for the Municipality of Greenstone and there is content on this page we are trying to update. Mainly, our motto is now "Nature's Home Town" and our municipal is no longer a "G" leaf, but now a compass. I have tried about 5 times, each without success to update these changes. I am confused on where to turn. Any ideas? "kristinamiousse"

Hello Kristinamiousse,
My apologies. I noticed that you had accidentally removed the infobox; however, I reverted too far and undid all of your edits. They should now be restored. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Also note that as you work for the Municipality of Greenstone, then you have a conflict of interest and this is paid editing - this is not strictly forbidden; however, you are strongly encouraged to put further suggestions on the article's talk page with the ((edit request)) template in the future, instead of editing the article directly (this helps maintain neutrality in our articles). You are required to disclose that you have been paid to do this, but I've taken care of that for you. Happy editing! LittlePuppers (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP block exempt[edit]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks zzuuzz, I appreciate this a lot! LittlePuppers (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's set for three months, after which you'll have to poke someone to review it. And it's a case of use it, don't abuse it, or lose it :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zzuuzz: *Poke*
Would you mind reviewing this? While due to being fairly busy outside of Wikipedia I'm not as active as I used to be, I do still find this to be very useful sometimes. Thanks! LittlePuppers (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Message from Lisaromanopalacios[edit]

Sincerest thanks for taking me under your wing, showing me how to move articles, and going on to fix my mistakes. You rock!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisaromanopalacios (talkcontribs)

No problem, Lisaromanopalacios! You're doing quite well, and I've had to do little more than give you some advice and do a bit of minor cleanup. I hope you enjoy it here and stay to improve many more articles - we're always in need of more good editors. Feel free to let me know if you ever have any more questions. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tone in chess articles[edit]

Thanks for trying to improve some overly vivid language in chess articles. The examples you corrected in Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation were particularly egregious, and your initiative was good since the feverish language had been in the article for some time and chess editors had not fixed it. I personally don't find "practically begging" in Trompowsky Attack to be a serious offense, but after reverting your edit I did intend to return to that page when I had the opportunity to come up with an alternative phrasing. The issue now is that "frequently leading to White inflicting doubled pawns" is also not an accurate paraphrase of "practically begging White to inflict the doubled pawns" as I think you will realize upon consideration. The original phrasing says nothing about whether it is likely that White will play Bxf6 or not, so unless you have a reliable source that indicates that this is the case it is unwise to make that edit. Of course there is no inline citation for the original statement either, which makes this murky anyway. The phrase "practically begging" was intended to indicate that 2...g6 is a provocative move that not only ignores White's positional threat but in fact dares him to execute it. I plan to return to Trompowsky Attack with some suitable language soon(ish). Quale (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, thanks for taking a look at that, Quale. I wasn't sure exactly how to word that, and in hindsight I probably should have put a lot more thought into that - making sure the information is accurate is more important than making it have proper tone (although ideally both should be good). LittlePuppers (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi LittlePuppers, User:GadgetGigi has been editing this for awhile, so his/her edits to mainspace articles may not be tests or vandalism or their userspace edits may be vandalism. Please keep an eye out. Thanks JC7V-constructive zone 04:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks JC7V7DC5768, I'll keep an eye on that. It appears to be a table of contestants for some reality TV show (they've edited a few of those, but don't appear to have done anything major). I don't really know where they're going with that. For now I'm going to assume that it's some project they're working on and that no harm will come of it, but I may be wrong (I'm also a bit curious about their intricate knowledge of tables from the moment they joined). I'm also not sure how the edit I reverted fits in with all that. Anyway, I doubt there's much to worry about for now (remember, assume good faith, even when reverting unconstructive edits, unless it's obviously to the contrary - which this is not), but I'll keep an eye on it anyway. Thanks for letting me know. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, what I was saying is that maybe the edit that you reverted of GadgetGigi on Big Brother 20 was a test edit (which it appears to be) I based that purely on the user page edits by said user. But i did have concerns as to the purpose of the user having a reality show table in their userpage (and not in a sandbox or draft space as many users do). JC7V-constructive zone 06:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JC7V7DC5768: It's called a userspace draft for a reason :). I've seen many newer users use their user page for drafts (many less innocent than this one), simply because they didn't know about sandboxes. There's nothing wrong with that (although a subpage or the draft namespace is preferred). I see you've left them a note, so that's probably fine. As to test edits: it's entirely likely, but I've found that ((uw-vandalism1)) is pretty broad (covering disruptive editing, vandalism, editing tests, where to get advice, etc.), is the default thing Twinkle opens to, and is usually what I use when I'm too rushed to figure out what the best response is and it's not too inaccurate. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey guys/girls, I’m pretty new to Wikipedia and the tables on my userpage are just my practice for working on reality show pages. I’m keeping them there to show what I have accomplished while editing on here. I also use them if I need to refresh my memory on how to do something. They are good practice while editing them. They are not going to be any harm to anything else on Wikipedia, I promise. I like to thank you for considering that. This is GadgetGigi by the way.

@GadgetGigi: There's no problem with that, JC7V was just getting a bit worried. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Szasz[edit]

Sign your posts!!! ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I don't know how I missed that. Thanks! (signed), LittlePuppers (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for fixing my user talk page. I could not see what was wrong/how Hmains (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem Hmains, it was some formatting tag that wasn't closed correctly (<tt>text<tt> instead of <tt>text</tt>). It was annoying me when I left a message, so I thought I'd see if I could find where the problem was. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for review of changes related to my attempts to bring my original company page back into Wikipedia[edit]

Hi LilPuppers,

Thanks for the information you have provided as I have been attempting to make my prior company page notable (once again?) after having it moved into a Draft area.

I have been scouring the net for any reviews/analysis/articles/etc. of my company and have posted around 25 so far.

Would you mind taking a look at the most recent changes on my Talk page, specifically reference links #17-19 (in the 'More new potential references' section), along with the paragraph following those additions?

I'm hopeful that the new additions of articles, dissertation reference, and analysis website information will help to make it clear my 14+ year company is valid/viable enough to justify a position within Wikipedia alongside my peers.

If all of the information provided can tip the scales to 51% notable, then hopefully (with some help on cleaning up whatever else is on the original page and still considered promotional/advertising), the original page can be moved from Draft back into Wikipedia as a live page.

I only want an informational page about my company in Wikipedia. I am not looking for an advertising or promotional page.

I own one of the very very few online dating sites/networks that has survived over 14 years in a very competitive market, and I really am just looking to have a place at the same table as the handful of other companies who have done the same.

Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated.Mic4444 (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mic4444,
Apologies for the late reply, I've been quite busy recently. I don't have much time to look thorough your exhaustive list of references at the moment, but I'll try to look through them relatively soon. A quick peek makes me think that they would generate similar comments to the others. Also, I found an archive of ref 5. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi LittlePuppers,
I suspect that most of the references I found have the same 'problem', but I'm hoping the last CNET one I added, that focuses exclusively on my company, and that odd site filled with a data analysis comparison of my company to other dating companies (in stats, income, ranking, etc) will be acceptable. I mentioned a few others in that last update, so when you do get a chance to look you may want to focus on those. While I'd love the sheer number and age of articles, book references, dissertation references and data analysis to work to show 'notability', I do understand that is not the way it works. I continue to hold out hope that there will be at least one acceptable nugget of gold in what I have found, to allow (after some clean up) my page to be viewed as legitimate and non-promotional. Thanks in advance for any additional help you can provide (and thanks for finding that archive of that article you added back into the original page). I don't know how you did that.Mic4444 (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi LittlePuppers,

Over a year has passed now, and my original page has now been automatically removed.

During the process above, you were kind enough to interject a few times to help me along my path, but ultimately, due to the 'tainting' of the page by the original paid creator, it was suggested that I allow it to disappear automatically after 6 months...and then it could be created/re-created without the 'promotional' negativity that was attached to it.

I'm not sure if this is the only remaining page related to my prior page, which is now gone, but hopefully, this will help you remember what this is all about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mic4444?markasread=142526690

You were kind enough to offer to help in the past, and I have a new article (albeit in French) that was written in June of this year, and it is solely about my company: https://www.charleston360.life/reseau-passions-plus-260-sites-orientes-sur-10659/

I am hoping your offer to help is still available since I did allow my company page to be automatically removed so that it would no longer have any connection to the individual who originally created it.

My company was created in 2004 and is one of the largest niche online dating networks. It is still up and running and growing year over year. I would think that in the overwhelmingly competitive online dating market, a company that has survived and grown for 15 years should be an acceptable entry within Wikipedia. I am 100% not looking for anything promotional in nature, and never was, even when the page was originally created.

There have been massive dating companies that have come and gone since mine was created (i.e. Date.com, True.com, AmericanSingles.com, YahooPersonals.com, Gay.com, etc.).

And, my company has been highlighted in articles in BusinessWeek, Fortune, CNET, Christian Science Monitor, ABC News, TechNewsWorld, HuffingtonPost, The Telegraph UK, Time, Washington Post, CBS News, Chicago Tribune, PC Magazine, The Sydney Morning Herald...with a large number of articles on niche sites like WeVorce, PN/ParaplegiaNews, AllTruckJobs, etc. Not to mention podcast interviews. It has also been mentioned on television by Conan O'Brien, Tucker Carlson, Ellen Degeneres, Steve Harvey and others. Countless relationships, marriages and children have come from the connections made in Passions Network over the last 15+ years. (Since my company is comprised solely of me and developers, virtually all articles and mentions of the company, by default, have included interviews with me, as it is the only way for journalists to get real information on the company.)

The ins and outs of Wikipedia still tie my brain in knots, so I don't even know what of the original PassionsNetwork page (if anything) is still able to be seen by you.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that the new french article is enough of a toehold for you to feel comfortable that my network crosses over at least the 51% mark, and is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. And again, I absolutely am not looking for anything promotional. But as one of the oldest, largest niche online dating networks, with millions upon millions of member profiles, I continue to hold hope that my site is worthy of a page in Wikipedia.

Would you be able to use any of the information previously entered into Wikipedia to write up even a very simplistic 'non-promotional' entry for my company Passions Network Inc, and its domain https://passionsnetwork.com/.

As the only 15+ year old niche dating network online, I have to believe my company should be listed among my peers in the online dating industry. It is a bit crazy to me that my company is not listed on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_dating_services

How can a 15+ year dating site with millions upon millions of member profiles not be included, while tiny sites like RocknRollDating (which is now a dead site) be listed there? It's baffling. I am sure 'RocknRollDating' never had the number of interviews for articles that I have given in 15+ years, or been referenced in as many well-known media outlets.

I hope this is the right place for this type of request and again, any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks. Mic4444 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Mic4444Reply[reply]

Hi again LittlePuppers,

I haven't seen your page update recently. Are you still available to help with Wikipedia projects?

Thanks, Mic4444 (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Mic4444Reply[reply]

Hi Mic4444,
Unfortunately I haven't had the time or interest to be very active on Wikipedia for quite some time (as you've noticed) and I'm not sure if or when that might change, so as a result I'm afraid I might not be the best person to help you right now. My apologies. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again LittlePuppers,

I suspected as much based on the lack of updates. There is no sense of urgency on my part since I purposely let my page lapse so that it was no longer associated with the prior creator and the negative taint he gave it. No pressure. I'll just hope that at some point you decide to delve back into Wikipedia, and that you'll be able to pick at least one or two of the many references to put in place even the sparsest of Wikipedia profiles. While there are obviously a huge number listed, I think it will only take one or two to justify a listing. As one of the only 15 year+ old online dating companies still around, I'm hopeful you will be able to help at some point. I do understand that Wikipedia is not on your radar right now. (I really hear you.) That being said, I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that one day I get a notification that there is now a page for PassionsNetwork on Wikipedia (all thanks to you). No pressure, seriously. It would be a great surprise if it does ever happen though. :) Thanks! Mic4444 (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Mic4444Reply[reply]

I'm not sure but I wonder how's this for a good user page[edit]

"LittlePuppers is a Wikipedia user that uses Wikipedia then he sometimes edits Wikipedia, but he never actually made a good user page."

Let me know!

GDanthonyYT (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)GDanthonyYTReply[reply]

@GDanthonyYT: That may or may not work, but I don't really feel like changing it right now. One thing I noticed is that it's in the third person. One thing I think you're missing is that your User: page is not an article. You seem to be using it to draft an autobiography (which is strongly discouraged, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY), and you seem to be misunderstanding our guidelines about notability (in your draft and userpage) and neutrality (in your userpage). Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, and happy editing! LittlePuppers (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accentus Music[edit]


I am wondering what is being looked for to justify 'Accentus Music' as a wikipedia article? There are many record and video labels/companies that have far less notoriety with articles on Wikipedia. The last edit supplied gave a whole list of solid citations that show Accentus Music as part of the classical, art music video market as a label/company (long list of awards, well established). Is it they have not been in the industry that long? Please clarify further/specifically why this page was declined.

Shelyric (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Shelyric,
What I'm looking for in regards to Draft:Accentus Music is citations focusing on the company - while citations focusing on things the company has published can be useful, notability is not inherited from those. Most of the citations you currently include in the article are focusing on music that is published by Accentus, but most of your secondary sources only have trivial mentions of the company itself, although your recent additions have helped with this somewhat. The article is getting close to establishing notability well and I think you can do so - I hope this helps you in finding citations, and let me know when you think it's ready for review again (or you could resubmit it to AfC... but that might take a while). LittlePuppers (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I will acquire more citations and resubmit. Shelyric

No problem, I'm more than happy to help. Good luck - the article is otherwise very good, and I think it's getting close to having enough citations. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's a Speedily Delete Nomination?[edit]

The hell? Never got this in my box before.

GDanthonyYT (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)GDanthonyYTReply[reply]

@GDanthonyYT: see WP:CSD, more specifically WP:G11. LittlePuppers (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read before taking action[edit]

I have added an objection onto Wikipedia:Help desk#Wiki map added to multiple articles . Let us talk about it. It is work to create the references and it is easy to destroy. Let us talk some more.--Sa57arc (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sa57arc: I've read that and will wait for consensus before I do anything. Please address the concerns various people have raised on the help desk. LittlePuppers (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion has moved to Template talk:Wikimapia cat .--Sa57arc (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that the discussion on the template is best done on the template talk page. The Spam page is rather prejudicial. I think that on the template talk page, there is plenty of room to un-collapse the discussion.--Sa57arc (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sa57arc: Sorry, I assumed that was a typo when you copied it, but I suppose there's no reason to leave it collapsed there. Can you please address the concerns that were raised previously about the links? LittlePuppers (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello LittlePuppers I mentioned you because you before commented on my page regarding the case of user Arobleh who is a suspected sock puppeteer of middayexpress so I assumed you are ware of it. Check this [1], and you will understand why I mentioned you. Have a nice day and sorry for any inconvenience. Ryanoo (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I see Ryanoo. Looking back, I'm not entirely sure why I was there, but I thought I'd mention that policy as I'd ran across it in the past and I thought you might find it helpful. I generally try to avoid sockpuppetry and stick with plain vandalism, but thank you for the thought. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, LittlePuppers. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference errors[edit]

Thank you very much for fixing my errors. I checked history to see what I did wrong. Little stuff. You have good eyes. I couldn't see it.Oldperson (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Oldperson! I think a lot of the little stuff didn't matter much, but evidently some of it did, so I'm glad we got that sorted out. LittlePuppers (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 10:34:56, 6 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Stps phonenix[edit]

Hi LittlePuppers, thank you for taking the time to review my submission, and your feedback on why the submission had to be rejected by you. As I understand it, the key point here is that it reads more like an advertisement by the author rather than a verifiable series of statements on the article subject. I will endeavour to improve the article to better reflect the required standards.. however, I'd like to dig in a little deeper. As I drafted this, I introduced two references/sources: one was the website of the subject of the article (which I can see could be considered an original text), however, I did cite the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs; this is an Indian government entity responsible for maintaining a registry of all incorporated companies in the country. Would this be considered a verifiable source? If not, could you give some common sources of verifiable information used by authors when creating Wikipedia articles about companies?

Stps phonenix (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be more than happy to help, Stps phonenix. There are a few things that I think will clear this up some and help you improve the article - and looking back, sourcing is as much of a problem as the tone.
First, sources. The general guideline is that an article should have significant coverage in at least three reliable secondary sources both to show that an article is notable and so that people can verify the information in the article. More specific guidelines for companies are found here. Significant coverage means that it must be a major focus of the source; being in something like "list of 10 software development tools" wouldn't work, and a passing mention as something such as a small tool in a study usually wouldn't count towards this, although (if needed) it could (in this hypothetical case) be used to source that it had been used in studies. This is somewhat relevant to your source from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs: it is reliable and secondary, and would be a great source for basic information about the company, but it has some information about every incorporated company in the country. Not every company is notable. While this is a good source, it is more of a directory (which Wikipedia isn't), and hence doesn't show the company to be notable.
Next, the sources should be reliable and secondary, for a few reasons. Reliability should be obvious: we don't want people making their own fake sources and using them in articles; usually reliable means that it has at least some editorial control. This includes things like blogs, as well as other untrustworthy and some heavily biased sources. (note that in some cases biased sources can be used, although usually not for opinions). flowharmonics.com obviously fails the secondary requirement. In this case, it can be used as a source, but again primary sources are often biased, and should mainly be used for non-contentious information and what the subject says about itself. Examples of reliable, secondary sources would be most books, scientific studies, and newspaper articles.
With this in consideration, the article should be written in an encyclopedic, not promotional tone, and needs more good sources. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of AFD[edit]

Hiya, you were previously involved with the article KC International Airlines. Just wanted to know I had nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KC International Airlines (2nd nomination). Please voice your opinions there. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tyw7: Thanks for letting me know. I've been away from the wiki for the last month or so (I've been quite busy IRL), but hopefully I'll be back more soon. Getting off of that tangent, I've come back to see that it was closed exactly 10 minutes before I looked at it - but I'm fine with how it turned out, and AfDs have to get closed sometime :). LittlePuppers (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Box drawing[edit]

Thanks for replying on the help desk, sorry I only just got around to reading it now. [[2]]

The problem is present with all those characters. I'm on Windows 10 now.

However, this is not really a Wikipedia issue.

PhilHibbs | talk 17:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PhilHibbs: Yeah, I'm not sure if you saw the rest of the discussion, but it looks like it's a browser issue. I don't know for sure, but I'm not seeing anything in Firefox's bug report system. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, LittlePuppers. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talkcontribs) 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: Unfortunately I've been a bit short on time recently, and I try to avoid those areas more than I used to. I'd also like to make sure you're read WP:CANVASS. Thanks. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sharpness wars listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sharpness wars. Since you had some involvement with the Sharpness wars redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:User page[edit]

Lots of ideas there. 7&6=thirteen () 19:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@7&6=thirteen: Yeah, I really need to get around to doing something about that sometime... LittlePuppers (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have found that hanging around experienced user's pages is really helpful. No reason to reinvent the wheel. Of course, if I borrow, I give credit in the edit summary.... Cheers. 7&6=thirteen () 19:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Evangelical Heritage Version, New Testament and Psalms.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Evangelical Heritage Version, New Testament and Psalms.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) 02:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Central South Slavic[edit]

Draft:Central South Slavic, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Central South Slavic and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Central South Slavic during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portage, Michigan[edit]

Hi...I see you had reason to stop by this article. If you have interest in the subject, I can help you with research to some extent. I lived in that area most of my life (until 2004, so at least 25 years), and frankly, that little city has a very interesting and controversial history. I stubbed it as promotional several years ago (if you're around settlement articles much, you know that Chamber of Commerce editing of them is rampant), and have never had the time to develop it properly. Maybe a new set of eyes would help. It's beginning was controversial, as it was done to prevent the city of Kalamazoo's further encroachment into the township (with what is now Pfizer's largest plant in the disputed area). There's enough stuff spaced along this community's timeline to write a GA or an FA on it. And both the Portage and Kalamazoo public libraries have friendly research librarians. Never had any reason to ask at Western Michigan, but college libraries are usually pretty helpful. John from Idegon (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for stopping by, John from Idegon. I also live in that area, although I know unfortunately little about its history. I'm afraid that I don't have the experience or especially the time right now to give it the attention it deserves (it's been sorely neglected), but I'll admit that you've piqued my interest so hopefully I can get to it sometime. I've also had very good experiences with the Portage library and looking quickly their website has a few places to start. It might be a few weeks, but I'll be sure to send you a ping when I get to it. Is there anywhere other than Category:FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles you'd suggest I look for example articles on cities? LittlePuppers (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not at the moment, but I'll look. Understandably, there are not that many smaller cities in the US that are GA/FA, and many of them wouldn't pass a re-review. I'll look around. Another interesting piece of history is the attempt to "save" Long Lake. That was ongoing when I left, and I'm betting it didn't work out too well. I'll get back to you soon. John from Idegon (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice[edit]

Hi LittlePuppers, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rejected page for the antient Indian female philosopher Avyar[edit]

Personal attacks by The Cat 2020, takes up large amount of talk page space. Collapsed in place of deletion due to user reply. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 21:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently rejected my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Avyar . You gave the following 2 reasons which could be described as a personal opinion rather than a professional one. I will explain myself after listing each of your notes. Your first reason provided, "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." Everyone can easily access the draft and clearly see that you have voiced your own opinion which doesn't in any case reflect the reality. The encyclopedia article about Avyar was clearly written from a neutral point of view and more than 19 independent, reliable and published sources were provided. They could be easily verified since I even provided page numbers and locations. There are no so-called peacock terms that could promote the subject. All major works are listed along with citation. Your second reason provided, "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner." I must reiterate that the topic was clearly written from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner. It is outrageous that you voice your own groundless opinion by claimimg that this submission "reads more like an essay" which is simply not true and the facts are showing the opposite. It would be great if you would take a minute and read the article first and then write your well-grounded opinion on the matter. It was clearly not the case with my article. The Cat 2020 (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi The Cat 2020,
I've reread the article and stand by my assessment - I'll give you some more in-depth feedback tomorrow morning on what you can do about it, but please note that you must attribute when you copy from other sources, even if they are in the public domain - see WP:Plagiarism for how to do so (there's a section about halfway down). I believe I've caught everything you've taken significant portions from, but make sure to attribute in the future. LittlePuppers (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you are trying to monitor or assess any information, you should first learn a thing or two about Indian mythology. I properly used all the sources listed and more than 19 sources were properly listed and those from which I cited were also properly mentioned and attributed. Your initial reasons were completely different from the one you are trying to make right now. I have clearly proved that 2 of the initial reasons were groundless as well as the one that you have come up with right now. It is pathetic to see when a person is trying to make one false accusation or a bogus claim after another one failed. When you are trying to make a poor point about plagiarism, then you should provide some evidence. Moreover, I cited several works that were written several hundreds of years ago. You should learn something about the rules for citing from the old English works where the attribution was allowed by listing either the previous author's name or the particular work's title. In my case, I followed all the rules but at the end I met with some made-up bogus and false accusations which are telling the whole story. Mythology has no age and many authors recognized this fact. When you list one ancient author who has a mythological background then you should expect a different tone of narration for the article. You should either know these things or you should learn them so you will not make any false decisions in the future. The Cat 2020 (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi The Cat 2020,
First, I'd like to note that I am not giving up my initial reasons (they are not "groundless") but simply noting something else important I hadn't previously addressed but thought I should quickly note. I did not have the time necessary to give you a thorough response on your other points last night, but here it is now. (Apologies if it's a bit disjointed in parts, it was written at several different times and thrown together.)
Indeed, there is a subjective aspect in all reviews; however, I've reread the article and stand by my assessment (which parallels other, previous feedback on the article); I encourage you to work to address the points made there and here - I, as well as others, will gladly give you feedback and advice if you ask politely.
First, to address the new point of attribution: Please read through WP:FREECOPYING. This gives guidelines for taking material directly from public domain sources. The most important points are as follows (emphasis mine): "Whether it is copyright-expired or public domain for other reasons, material from public-domain sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed.... If text is copied or closely paraphrased from a free source, it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page." (There is also more documentation on this here.) I've taken care of this for you (if you look in the edit history you'll see I added ((PD-notice)) by the sources you copied from), it's just a note for the future.
NPOV: please read through WP:NPOV thoroughly (including the section on peacock terms - search through the article for a few of them). It's not as blatant as many examples I've seen, but the bias is subtly there. You're not too far off the mark, though. Helping here would also be clarification in a few spots, such as the qualifications of "the Reverend Dr. John." An example of this being done well is how with Godfrey Higgins you note that he is a historian and link his article; whereas, with John you simply seem to imply that he is an authority without giving us any context for such.
And next you touch upon the very point I was going to bring up. You say that I should "first learn a thing or two about Indian mythology" - but where's a better place to do that than here? Learning is the entire point of Wikipedia! If I can't learn from an article, I don't see why it should be here at all. The point of an encyclopedia is not that the reader has to have a whole lot of background knowledge to understand the article. This is noted at WP:AUDIENCE: "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully." Later, that page also notes that you should "State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader." Linking to our articles about others mentioned in the text would also be helpful, although clear prose is probably of greater importance.
This is already bleeding into the next point, tone. Please read through WP:TONE. There are a few issues here: the first, mentioned previously, is that the article requires a lot of previous knowledge from the reader. Another is that good prose style has changed a lot in the last 200 years, and old text is often not very clear to (especially unacquainted) modern readers, both grammatically and stylistically. In regard to this, I'd also encourage you to look at WP:TECHNICAL, summarized at the top by the phrase "Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material." Another issue (WP:NARRATOR) mentioned on WP:TONE that can tip you off that something isn't quite encyclopedic regards the use of first and second person pronouns (see for example the phrase "We can even have a well-grounded opinion about the mythological nature of her life."): "Articles should not be written from a first- or second-person perspective. In prose writing, the first-person (I/me/my and we/us/our) point of view and second-person (you and your) point of view typically evoke a strong narrator. While this is acceptable in works of fiction and in monographs, it is unsuitable in an encyclopedia, where the writer should be invisible to the reader." In fact, using that quote, I would argue that a monograph perfectly describes the text you're taking from the books mentioned above.
One final thing I want to address is the claim that your sourcing is a direct representation of the quality of your writing, as this is something you seem to have brought up a few times here. I think you've fallen into a few misconceptions here. First of all, your sourcing is not an issue; the wording you put into the article (your prose) is. You can have terrible sourcing and good prose, and you can good sourcing but misrepresent it in an article. These are both bad things. Furthermore, the age of a source is not the sole indicator of its reliability. (See WP:RS AGE.) In certain cases ancient sources can be useful, especially for providing a contemporary view or eyewitness accounts; in others, where a field has seen new, recent discoveries, old sources can be less accurate, harder to understand, or even completely wrong compared to newer sources. This is not to say that your sources are bad, but simply that their age cannot by itself make them authoritative; that has to be a result of their own merits.
If you still feel that I am wrong, I would encourage you to read through the pages I linked, which are generally accepted guidelines (they should all say "This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline" at the top), and tell me point by point how my interpretation is wrong.
It has also come to my attention that there may be (significant) overlap between Draft:Avyar and Avvaiyar, in which case you might want to work on expanding the already-accepted article instead of continuing work on yours.
I hope this is helpful. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi LittlePuppers, You have certainly put up an effort in trying to make up a point but your phrase, "...in others, where a field has seen new, recent discoveries, old sources can be less accurate, harder to understand, or even completely wrong compared to newer sources" tell us the whole story. I didn't use the unknown sources. You should have seen that such names as Godfrey Higgins and Sir William Jones were mentioned in the article and the translation of the main works of Avyar were published in Asiatic Researches. You can also read a few things about The Asiatic Society. As of today no one came even close to the authority of Sir William Jones in terms of the professional field in which he operated. As I said before, the translation of the works of Avyar was published in Sir William Jones' Asiatic Researches and this fact can't be stressed enough to underline its importance. This single source could have been enough to publish an article in normal circumstances. That's why I am insisting that the proper research must be done by the reviewers before they review the material in which they are not easily comfortable. Had you allowed to create a page for the Rev. Dr. John then I would have gladly make a reference to it. I used the attribution to his name as it was written in Asiatic Researches of Sir. William Jones. Referenced sources were properly used in this article and the 3rd reference was clearly used in the second paragraph. Parentheses are only required in the exact citation. When the material is used with paraphrasing or in slightly or significantly different mode then the attribution is more than enough without the use of parenthesis. You should know this. I didn't try to pretend that the material was written by me more than 200 years ago. When the research paper is published on any subject, then all the works being used in it are listed at the end. I listed all the works that were being used and/or consulted in preparation of this article. All have been done strictly in accordance to the use of the proper English. Therefore I stand by my initial assertion that you have clearly failed to list reasons that prevented you from granting this page to be approved for publication. In terms of Rev. Dr. John you have mentioned, I can tell you that after the publication is approved some other user can research more material from many, many volumes of Asiatic Researches and add some additional and relevant information regarding Dr. John's identity and professional expertise. This is how things are usually and normally working on Wikipedia. I can easily see some bias on your side towards my page and/or material that I prepared for publication. Finally, I reiterate one important aspect: we are talking about mythology here so the language used will always be slightly different from the regular tone of modern articles. Do you know when the Brahma was born? Can you list his exact birthday? Mythology and mythological persons are treated in a different way on Wikipedia and you must know this. With that being said, my article is written in an acceptable form with all the references and citations properly attributed and/or mentioned. Taking this fact into account, it must be approved since there were no well-grounded reasons ever listed. Please also read the references that I have mentioned. Open Godfrey Higgins' book on pages 776-777 and you will learn how the material is properly sited and or attributed. I went many steps further in order to make it suitable to modern standards. I didn't have to but I did. You wrote a lot of words to me but you could have saved this energy and added some additional information to an approved page. This would have been more helpful. I am writing an article about the mythology of your country and you are creating groundless obstacles and preventing this article from being approved. Do you see some irony in it? The Cat 2020 (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi The Cat 2020,
I would simply like to restate a few points I made earlier that you seemed to have missed:
  • '"First of all, your sourcing is not an issue; the wording you put into the article (your prose) is."
  • "Please read through WP:FREECOPYING."
  • "If you still feel that I am wrong, I would encourage you to read through the pages I linked, which are generally accepted guidelines (they should all say "This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline" at the top), and tell me point by point how my interpretation is wrong."
To respond to one more point that the above doesn't quite cover:
  • "Finally, I reiterate one important aspect: we are talking about mythology here so the language used will always be slightly different from the regular tone of modern articles."
    • Per WP:TECHNICAL "Most Wikipedia articles can be written to be fully understandable by the general reader with average reading ability and motivation."
    • You ask questions about my qualifications regarding Indian mythology: I can quickly go to Brahma and find out the answers to your questions. That article also appears to follow established Wikipedia guidelines, and contradicts your claim that mythology articles have to use "slightly different language" and that "mythology and mythological persons are treated in a different way on Wikipedia".
I don't quite know any other way to explain to you that your article should be fairly intelligible to the average reader; would you like me to ask someone else to give you feedback here? You seem to be focusing solely on the points that I specifically say that I'm not making. LittlePuppers (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi LittlePuppers, I will just restate what I have already said twice. My article is written in strict accordance with the rules stated. Proper attribution is given everywhere it is required. You wrote, "Almost the entire article is directly from PD sources listed at the bottom." That statement is factually incorrect and misleading.It should be removed. When the text is properly paraphrased no quotation marks are needed as per Wikipedia's rules. I followed the rules and gave a full attribution to each source. When the direct citation was used, I used it in quotation marks. The citation from the works of Avyar does't not require quotation marks for each sentence since the proper attribution was given before the citation. Right now you have moved away from the first two statements you made as well from the statement regarding the Dr. John. I would like someone more experienced to check my article which should have been approved by now. The article can be fully understandable by anyone as it is written that way. Initially you made a statement that my article sounds like an essay which is factually incorrect and misleading. You should not state your own opinion when you are clearly biased towards the material in my article. I used reference to Brahma to show you the parallel with mythology. You can certainly read a Wikipedia article but you will get only 0.01% information on the subject. You should not make groundless obstacles towards creation of the really informative material which can be expended afterwards by a person or a group of people who share common interests on the subject. The Cat 2020 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Cat 2020, if you want more feedback from other experienced editors please ask at the teahouse. LittlePuppers (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:The Cat 2020. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acca software page rejection[edit]

Hi LittlePuppers, I have corrected the article Draft:ACCA software about according to the comments that you left about the advertisement parts. As a matter of fact, I tried to be as faithful as possible to the story I came to know and before publishing I also made sure that Autodesk and Graphisoft pages (belonging to the same field) followed more or less the same descriptive principles. I hope that this time can work ok, or please feel free to show me where else the article needs to be amended.

Thanks! Lewjon (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Lewjon, it looks like you've resubmitted it so someone (be it me or someone else) will get to it eventually; we currently have a backlog of about 1500 submissions so I can't guarantee that it'll be right away. LittlePuppers (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article creation[edit]

Why did you decline my article creation for the artist Lil Truth ? BillTan8 (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BillTan8: Replied on your talk page. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jye Bolton[edit]

Hi. I noticed you gave some recommendations to my Draft article on Jye Bolton I was wondering if you could help me as I’m really stuck. It seems like the whole article is in parts and I don’t know how to put it back together Also the file name has been changed to Jye Bolton png and I don’t know why? I also need help with referencing and the online citation. Thanks so much! Collingwood supporter (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with completing a new page for a public figure[edit]

Hi, I was working on a new Wikipedia page earlier in the year. The individual has a lot of notability now and has been featured on verified publications like Yahoo Finance, Yahoo News and Popdust.com etc I was wondering if I could send you the links so we can complete the page and get it approved. The page is for the artist “Lil Truth” BillTan8 (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi BillTan8, unfortunately I'm a bit inactive at the moment and don't really have the time to help with this. I would recommend carefully reading the feedback posted on your article by AfC reviewers and submitting it for review again by clicking the "resubmit" button at the top. If you have further questions, the best place to ask would probably be the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Best of luck. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modern Metis Woman Review Request[edit]

LittlePuppers, thank you so much for your help so far.

When you have a moment, can you please review;


Thank you for volunteering, and your patience with this first time author. All of your suggestions were used in the updated article. Noapplause (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Noapplause, at this point I'm not comfortable giving it another full review (the first review was fairly clear-cut, but this subject falls outside of my area of expertise and comfort); hopefully someone else will take a look in the near future. (If I had to review it, I would probably decline it again for a promotional tone.) I will leave a few comments/suggestions if you want to work on it in the mean time:
  • It still feels a tad off to me on the promotional front, although I can't put my finger on any specific way to describe it. (I assume you've read Wikipedia articles before; is this what most of them (especially the less obscure ones) read like?)
  • That is a lot of very short paragraphs.
  • Names shouldn't be all caps.
  • Not every sentence has to start exactly the same.
  • I think I put my finger on what it is that's throwing me off from the first point: this reads more like a statement of beliefs than an objective description of the organization.
  • Some of the organization feels a bit off to me:
    • Past winners should be a subsection of scholarship
    • The diversity section I think could use a better title, although I'm not sure what; perhaps a "history" section would work better (and be more consistent with the style found in other articles); a history section could also absorb the "founder" section.
    • Perhaps split a few things into a "background" (or similar) section?
  • Overall it doesn't seem to flow very well; it reads as a series of ideas that are not connected very well.
Hopefully this is of some help. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LittelPuppers Thank you so much, you are a volunteer that represents Wikipedia's objective and honest opinions for improvement and help. I have followed up immediately on all of your excellent suggestions. I assume from your response it will be another volunteer who will review the article, I was hoping it could be you as you have helped so much. Gentle push for your review, because you are so helpful. The article is ready for review by you, honestly I used all of your suggestions. Only if your comfortable to review it. Super thank you.

Noapplause (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]

Hello LittlePuppers:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1200 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.Reply[reply]

Request on 09:59:56, 31 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by[edit]

According to Wikipedia’s guidelines, the subject already satisfies notability per WP:SOLDIER, as she is a General officer. (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Coatshut80: WP:SOLDIER currently goes to a page with the following text:
The notability guidance previously provided by the WP:SOLDIER essay has been deprecated as a result of this discussion. It is no longer considered by WikiProject Military history to be useful guidance on the notability of military people, and its use in deletion discussions is actively discouraged by the project. Deletion discussions regarding biographical articles should refer to WP:BIO.
Also, if one person declines your draft, please write why you think the decline reason is not valid on the draft before resubmitting, rather than doing so without any changes. LittlePuppers (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations from WikiProject Articles for Creation![edit]

The Invisible Barnstar & The Teamwork Barnstar
Congratulations! You have earned The Invisible Barnstar and The Teamwork Barnstar for reviewing 32 drafts and doing 26 re-reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation July 2021 Backlog Drive. Thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia!
On behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation, Enterprisey (talk!) 00:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News[edit]

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

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

You have been pruned from a list[edit]

Hi LittlePuppers! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed on the AFC's participants list, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months. Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to regain access to the AFCH script, you can do so at any time by visiting WT:AFCP. Thank you for your work at AFC, and if you start editing Wikipedia again we hope you will rejoin us. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indoor advertising[edit]

Hi. I notices you reviewed my draft on indoor Advertising. Can you tell me if you read the whole text? I didn't add new sources because there aren't any. There is no Wikipedia page on idoor advesing and even Wikipedia suggests creating one. Can you tell me what do you think is the problem with this draft? (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(replied elsewhere) LittlePuppers (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trevelyan Street[edit]

My article: draft:TrevelyanStreet


In your reason for deleting my article, you stated that no one had written anything about my street, so I have tried my best to find some real people referencing it.

-Here is the website I found about the street: https://trevelyanstreet.wixsite.com/trevelyan

-Here is a NOVEL I found based entirely around the street: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hdDjN5OHrKqrF49I5Fq5Pm-d5MloSd9Z/view?usp=sharing

Finally, I would like to mention another road, Glen Huntly Rd, which is very close to Trevelyan street. It has its own Wikipedia article. Perhaps, if this road was allowed to be an article, maybe Trevelyan Street can be too.

Please just note I am not making this article for myself, but for the good of Trevelyan Street. I hope you will take this and the links I sent to you into consideration. Thank you for your time. Toby3141 (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toby, it appears that you wrote this novel. LittlePuppers (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, thank you for your time. Toby3141 (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page reviewer granted[edit]

Hi LittlePuppers. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page 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 or ask via the NPP Discord. 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. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. signed, Rosguill talk 22:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joseph Teran[edit]

I updated the page for Joseph Teran since you declined it due to having too limited sources. Could you possibly check it again since I added more sources KnowledgeShouldBeFreeForAll (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi KnowledgeShouldBeFreeForAll,
In most cases I typically try to avoid repeatedly reviewing the same draft - I find it better to have a new set of eyes look at the changes. The draft is in the queue to be reviewed, so someone will get to it as they have time; unfortunately I can't say exactly when that will be, as we have a rather large backlog right now. LittlePuppers (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive[edit]

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New pages patrol newsletter[edit]

Hello LittlePuppers,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

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

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

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

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

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


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Football club shirts for infobox[edit]

Hi @LittlePuppers, I notice on the Burnley FC talk page you state you may be able to update club shirt designs for the current season in the infobox. Is this is something you may be able to help with for another page? TIA. Magpie069 (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Magpie069, it looks like that was quite a while ago but if you point me to a page and the correct information, I'd certainly take a look. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November Articles for creation backlog drive[edit]

Hello LittlePuppers:

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 1200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some baklava for you![edit]

Thanks for the review, could you also help me out by assisting me in the article, please? Yaminmohsin (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(replied on their talk) LittlePuppers (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 15:30:39, 8 November 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Emmdas07[edit]

It is possible that acidemia does not need to be a new page. I don't think that acidemia however should link back to acidosis. I understand that this happens perhaps 10 times in Wikipedia in various places. I also think that if you search Wikipedia for acidemia you should get acidemia not acidois. I wrote the acidemia article to explain why. I didn't want to say that this is an outdated way of thinking about acid base chemistry. I think it is and causes confusion but I am trying to be polite. This discussion would never have happened before the 1990s. It changed for a reason. I think that other authors would also agree me and instead of linking acidemia to acidosis would link acidemia to acidemia if there were a way to do it. Maybe a section in the acidosis article on acidemia could be linked to that section instead of the acidosis article itself. Maybe acidemia should be a stub. Maybe all the 10 links of acidemia to acidosis should be deleted. Perhaps this discussion needs to be on the talk page for acidemia page but I don't guess there is one yet. I would like to hear what other people have to say about acidemia being the same as acidosis.

Reknihtdivad (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Emmdas07,
It is certainly possible that an article on acidemia would be beneficial. However, it does seem like the acidosis article does explain the difference between acidosis and acidemia. (Admittedly, I'm not quite an expert in the subject.) My main concern about your draft right now is that it's pretty much just a definition of the term, and doesn't seem to contain much of any information about acidemia that isn't in the current acidosis article (in the places where it specifies it is describing acidemia).
In short, it seems like you think the acidosis article uses that term to also describe acidemia, but it seems to me that that article does keep the terms distinct; but I may be misunderstanding you.
Feel free to also start a discussion at talk:acidosis - that's not a bad idea. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I am of course new to Wikipedia editing, the software and the culture. I added a comment on talk: acidosis about the link from acidemia to acidosis. We will see if I get any discussion. Reknihtdivad (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The page was change to a redirect page. Reknihtdivad (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for participating in AfC November 2023 Backlog Drive[edit]

The Working Man's Barnstar
Thank you for your participation in the Articles for Creation's November 2023 Backlog Drive! You made a total of 52 reviews, for a total of 60 points. – robertsky (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy holidays![edit]

– robertsky (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some falafel for you![edit]

Thanks for fixing ((Escape page link from within))! The inner workings of MediaWiki may remain a mystery, but luckily we need not do a deep dive into that so long as it works :) ((u|Sdkb))talk 04:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]