& &
< > &lt; &gt;
' &apos;
" &quot;

Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ Ν Ο Π Ρ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω

[m.MagicHelpWorlds]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Alternative medicine, you may be blocked from editing. The text you removed was perfectly well sourced. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not vandalism. You should learn what vandalism is, and what constitutes a supported statement. Show me where that statement is supported. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've again mistaken Wikipedia for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary. For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected. You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola. In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them. In a nutshell - its OK for Wikipedia to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages. Edaham (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's just go our separate ways. You failed to refute my statement and gave up. I know where you stand. You know where I stand.

WP:GEVAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"Wikipedia’s policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[21] [22] [23] [24]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.^[1]
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.^[2]
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.^[3]
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.^[4]
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.^[5]
We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.^[6]
We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.^[7]
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.^[8]
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.^[9]
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.^[10]
We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.^[11]
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.^[12]
We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.^[13]
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against young earth creationism.^[14]
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.^[15]
We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.^[16]
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.^[17]
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.^[18]
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.^[19]
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.^[20]
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with all of that. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hint: it includes bias against acupuncture. You have just defended acupuncture at WP:NORN. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a solid point. I revise my statement to say I agree with 99% of that, but I am agnostic about accupuncture based on a consensus statement by the NIH. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I solidly agree with this very vibrant statement. Very enlightening.✌️ PASTOR11 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But a certain part with all due respect and all protocol reserved. I believe that people can change. We can change on being biased towards for example vaccination or medicine. With peace ✌️ PASTOR11 (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice addition to the Fixer article. Fantastic film. I was contemplating adding it myself but didn't know if it would be excessive since there's so many examples. What do you think about Ray Donovan, and The Wolf from Pulp Fiction? Incerto501 (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I too was worried about overfilling the section, but I think fixers are arguably more prevalent in fiction than reality, from my experience, a big pop culture section doesn't seem redundant. I think Wolf would be a perfect addition, and I also think of Doug Stamper from House of Cards to be the quintessential fixer, and from a major modern TV series. Maybe the fixer archetype in fiction should even be its own article, at some point. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're probably right about the pop culture fixer needing it's own article. In the meantime I've added Winston Wolfe, Doug Stamper, and Ray Donovan. Cheers! Incerto501 (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OSHA. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I swear I've heard this phrase somewhere else before. Where did you find it? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like it's from an 80's movie called They Live. The original line was "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass…and I'm all out of bubblegum." I just swapped in "Wikipedia". I've heard variations in pop culture numerous times but never seen that movie. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Some editors are just blind to inconsistencies in their logic. Even if an editor passionately hates "lunatic charlatans", Wikipedia should try to take a neutral tone. What are the articles you're hoping to create? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Pyrrho the Skeptic for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE August 2021 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your well thought out contributions at WP:RS/N. ––FormalDude talk 09:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FormalDude: Thanks so much. This made my day. Thanks for your great contributions, too. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, Pyrrho the Skeptic, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you have already created one biography of a women and look forward to many more. If you haven't already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Primer for creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the welcome and I will certainly look through that material. I appreciate the support and look forward to working on this project. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a dispute resolution open at the DR noticeboard in which you have been involved Here Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pyrrho the Skeptic, editors with a properly disclosed COI can contribute if they follow the proper guidelines. In this case, an undisclosed paid editor added unreferenced and highly promotional content to a biography of a living person at the behest of their boss. Every single thing about their edit was completely inappropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that, Cullen. If you could humor me a bit more, was the user warned first? Secondly, was there in fact a username violation as stated in the edit summary? Thirdly, why was the record of the edit removed from the archives? I wanted to see it myself so I could understand what the violation is. Not that I would do anything, just out of curiosity. Thanks Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, they were not warned first and warnings are not necessary for spam accounts or other overt violators. The username "BRassistant" is a username violation as a role account. Assistants come and go, and accounts are for one person only. The account is an undeclared paid account. They posted unreferenced highly promotional content, which as an administrator I could read. The content also was a copyright violation which had to be suppressed for legal reasons. I have blocked thousands of spam accounts on sight without a warning. It is standard operating procedure in the world of fighting spam. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, that all makes sense. I appreciate the explanations Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(re BRassistant): Is it still a violation if the user disclosed their COI? I was under the impression that accounts could exist that are affiliated with an organazation or person, provided they disclose COI. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Pyrrho. So, the problem with this account name is not the COI per se. The problem is that it's a role account that implies shared use. Wikipedia accounts have to be owned by a signle person forever; "one person, one account" is the rule (with some exceptions, of course). They are not allowed to be owned by groups of people, or handed down from one person to another. The latter is the reason that "BRassistant" is a problem--it implies that this account is held, not by an individual, but by whoever happens to be Betsy Rosenberg's assistant at the time, and when the position changes hands, presumably so would the Wikipedia account, which is the problem. Usernames that declare a COI while still clearly identifying an individual do not break this rule: this is known as the "Mark at Alcoa" exception. But they have to identify a specific individual, not just a position.

Of course, this is largely moot, as the biggest problem with that account is the editing itself; the username is secondary to the copyvio/spam. That's why I hardblocked, rather than just softblocking. In any event, hope this helps, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, @Writ Keeper: that's an enlightening explanation and makes perfect sense to me now. Much appreciated. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You forgot to add your signature to your response to a question on Teahouse. Don't worry, we all do it sometimes. 22:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just hope the poor trout's okay. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The trout's fine. It's only slapped about 100 million people or so. It'll be fine! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I love this new function for mentors. I'm trying to get an article published however I would love to work with a japanese person to get sources. Is there any method for wikipedians to work across different nationalities to get articles published? --Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi and thanks for reaching out. Glad to have you on Wikipedia and thanks for being a part of it! That's a great question. If you have not already, check out Project Japan, and you can add your name to the list of participants. From there, you should be able to communicate with other editors well-versed in the topic, as well as find articles and sources more easily. I will have a think and see if there might be other ways for you to get those sources and collaborate on those articles. Let me know if you have more questions, I'm always happy to help if I can. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you edited Wikipedia using other accounts? Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He has had a lot of accounts over the years, his most famous was his banned account called tumbleman. 82.132.229.72 (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alexbrn: I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here because I see that some IP has tried to link me to sockpuppet accounts on the Naturopathy Talk Page. I can tell you that that is 100% false and I have no idea what they are referring to. @82.132.229.72: I literally have no idea what you are talking about, but I am prepared to take this to the admins if you continue. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ignoring the IP, though: have you edited Wikipedia using other accounts? Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. This is the only account I use to edit. Why are you asking me this? Seems so out of left field. Again, I believe you mean well, but I'm very confused why you're coming to my Talk Page and asking me if I use other accounts without elaborating. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that response that clears things up. It's a fairly routine query to ensure there are no WP:SCRUTINY issues. As I am sure you're aware, socking is a major problem on Wikipedia, particularly in fringe areas. It also puts the IP's aspersions to bed. Alexbrn (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, fair enough. I'm a bit concerned now about who this IP is and who they might be connected to. Very odd that a content dispute turns into an IP making very specific accusations about specific usernames. I'm a little unsettled by the whole thing. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, it seems you accidentally put your signature after my post, which creates a wrong impression it was written by you. If it was not your intention, can you please remove it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake! Not sure how that happened. It's removed now. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the advice. ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course. Collaboration and communication on Wikipedia can be fun and I highly recommend it. Hope you stick around and keep editing. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211 Online events: New: Women in STEM New Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman Special event: 12 October: Ada Lovelace Day 24-Hour Global Edit-a-thon See also: Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

Hello kindly help me in creating pages Bobor001 (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• Can You help me create a page Bobor001 (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hi @Bobor001:, what kind of help do you need? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* yeah, I created a Draft Article here @Draft:9jabased Wiki, which was recently decline stating that I should add more reliable source which I did now, so I strongly need you to help me move it to Article and protect it from vandalism. I will get more reliable source tommorow which I will add again thanks cheers.Bobor001 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• Thanks for explaining. That's great that you're creating your own Wiki encyclopedia. Please note that being in article space will not prevent it from being vandalized. However, right now, your sources do not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Your website needs to show significant coverage from independent, third-party, reliable sources. Your sources are mostly self-published and primary. I hope that helps. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213 Online events: New: Film + Stage | Endocrine health Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Wikipedia Asian Month 2021 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

Hello, how can I add my photos --Lilwhya (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Lilwhya:, welcome to Wikipedia. Do you own the rights to use the photo? You can use this page, and submit a request to add a photo by clicking "Make a new request". Or, you can read through this guide. I hope that helps. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I saw that you were interested in volunteering at the Signpost. The best way to help is to just jump in and go for it. You can start small, and check with Smallbones, our editor in chief, if you're unsure about something. I mention this now because the next issue is 5 days away, so the articles will need copyediting, and that's a great place to start. You can use Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom to coordinate what you do with everyone else, but every article will need a copyedit before publication, so there'll be plenty to do! Good luck and happy editing. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ganesha811: thanks so much for your help. That clears up a lot of my confusion, and I appreciate the heads up about the new issue. I'll check it out and see what I can do. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to put profile picture? --Javed hsb (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Javed hsb: do you own the photograph and is this for your user page? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I add this logo to a page i just created? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carlsbad_kickboxing_club_PLAIN.jpg --Carlsbadkickboxingclub (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @Carlsbadkickboxingclub: thanks for reaching out. Please note that you're currently violating user name and user page policies. You cannot use a user name or a user page to promote a particular business. If you want to create an article for the boxing club, you, or preferably someone that's not you, must first create a user name without the business name in it, disclose your or their conflict of interest on your or their user page, then an article draft can be created and submitted for review. The business must have reliable, significant, third-party coverage to be considered for an article. In that draft you can potentially add that logo, providing you have the right to use it. I hope that helps! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiya! I wanted to know if theres some way o can draw the line so i don't overlink! --Tetchywaif (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for reaching out! Do you mean Wikilinks? That's a good question. Not everyone agrees on where to draw the line, but I think reading through this thoroughly will help. Also, reading through good articles to see how it's done there. I used to want to add Wikilinks as much as I could, but over time, I feel like I've become more stingy, simply because they serve a purpose, which is to help readers contextualize the content, and learn new things. If I don't think the link will do either of those, I won't add one. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I add a new article? --Jerryzanga (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jerryzanga:Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for the question. Please read Your First Article. Feel free to come back and ask further questions along the way. Happy editing. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216 Online events: New: "Double the lede!" | Women who died in 2021 Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Women in Climate Change and preparations for our 2022 Climate initiative Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

Hi Pyrrho the Skeptic. I think I came across some of your edits while going over Quetstar's abysmal COI request reviewing, which I believe you discussed with them so thank you for that. Concerning the sentence I removed from the Petco article, I believe my rationale was that given the request added the following: "In 2005, after pressure from PETA, Petco agreed to stop selling parrots and other large birds", the previous line remained a bit out of place. I will continue with the review in the coming days. Feel free to let me know your thoughts. Thanks, PK650 (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PK650:Thanks for reaching out and for your hard work in going over over those requests. Although I'm not adamant about it, it did feel a bit like corporate spin to remove the verb "criticized" in favor of what Petco did in response. I think it's fair and accurate to say that they were criticized for it. But if you disagree, I'm not going to fight it. Thanks again and happy editing! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason I said ‘currently’ is because the scholarly view always changes. Now I will admit it is a bit odd of me to do so but in the last few decades a ziggurat has been found in the Old Babylonian Kingdom, so I’m predicting that scholars are going to change there view soon. That’s why I put currently. If you want to discuss more I am more than willing. Teertrevo (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Teertrevo:Thanks for explaining. "The scholarly view always changes" is a statement by you that I've seen no evidence for anywhere. I'd say the fact that scholars think Genesis is myth and not fact is a consensus that needs no qualifier of "currently". Unless you can provide evidence that scholars are likely to change their mind frequently about this, which seems very unlikely. I encourage you to start a conversation on the Talk Page of the article, though. That way you can can get some additional opinions. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your advice on restoring a neutral point of view to the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation page.

So what would be the appropriate next step here to fix the page and resolve this dispute? I have written at length on the talk page previously and I know others not affiliated with the organization have also tried to fix the page's currently non-neutral POV, but everything has been consistently dismissed by the editor who made the changes in the first place.

Any help on how to go about restoring a neutral POV and accuracy to the page would be appreciated. DVillageP11 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will make the edit to the lead now, and if it is reverted, I will call for a Third Opinion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Village.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Bring on the cheer!
	Hi Pyrrho the Skipper, May you have a bright and beautiful holiday season and a happy and healthy 2022! Netherzone (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Netherzone (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Netherzone: Thank you, kindly. And I wish the same to you and those important to you. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I am a new account here. I will like to learn something new. I am new here, and I will like to contribute something based on my interests and something, and trying to keep Wikipedia a better place for all. Is there some rules or guidelines I have to obey? --SReader65 (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! So glad you're here and want to contribute. You should start here: The Wikipedia Adventure. That might be helpful! If not, come back here and I will help you with more resources. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also got a question but that was a bit bothering, but based on the reading of vandalism on one of my favorite articles (because I do not condone that and then there were this), may I know what is a sockpuppet? I just worry because that I am making a fresh new account to start something etc., and is it safe to log in on the affected ISP or something? --SReader65 (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A sockpuppet is an account that is one of multiple accounts that one user has, to try to influence Wikipedia by looking like multiple individuals. Does that make sense? You should use just one account, the one you commented here with. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk)

Oh, so in the case, I have a shared network at home but because the IP address is temporarily blocked from anon or something, is it alright that I can log in on that IP address, just to prevent suspicion? Other than that, thanks. SReader65 (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the IP address blocked from editing Wikipedia? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, but now it is lifted. So can I use on different devices using that different IP address, is that OK? SReader65 (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As long as you edit Wikipedia with the account you're using, SReader65, I think you'll be okay. but you may want to ask at the Teahouse. I'm not an expert at the technical details. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello I am new to wikipedia. Could you please reinstate the links, properly, as I do not know how to? Thank you. Knowledge1253 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. What was the purpose of those links? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The purpose of the links was to cite existence of the parks. Knowledge1253 (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219 Online events: New: Climate (year-long initiative) | Women in business | US territories Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2021 Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month. Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

مرحبا اكيفية تهكير حسابات انستكرام --Yousif basim (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I don't speak Arabic, sorry. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Computers can translate for you, nowadays.

Knowledge1253 (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Why did you remove the government links for McGarry Township Forest Conservtion Reserve? Knowledge1253 (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted your edits because you are spamming the article with links. If you want to improve the article, stop adding links and add useful content with sources. Do not add any more external links. Thank you! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry you feel I am spamming with links. I am adding external links for citation and reference.

Knowledge1253 (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please tell me what the inappropriate link was, and why it was inappropriate, so I do not do it again. Tks! Knowledge1253 (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Knowledge1253: Before you edit again, please go to the article Talk Page and suggest the edits you'd like to make. Then myself or another editor will review them and help you implement them correctly. Thanks! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I won't bother, thanks! Knowledge1253 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Period. Stop deleting content. Knowledge1253 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I demand you restore the paragraph on their land claim, with cited source from ontario.ca. Knowledge1253 (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beaverhouse First Nation Community (Treaty 9)

Location: Northeast of Kirkland Lake Claim type: Reserve Land

Beaverhouse First Nation Community submitted a claim to Ontario on July 5, 2018, asserting the community is a distinct First Nation and did not sign Treaty 9, or any other treaty. On April 18, 2019, Ontario advised Beaverhouse First Nation Community that it will complete an assessment of the claim submission within three years. ^[1][2]

Knowledge1253 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should request this edit on the article's Talk Page, not here. However, I recommend apologizing to the other editors for your behavior and being polite in your requests. That's the best way to move forward. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I demand you revert the deletion of the newly elected mayor of McGarry!!!!!¡! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:34A:BC69:3E87:18EA:9862:D8E9 (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess I need to make an apology for my behaviour. Here it is, and one last thing, sorry you got offended. Knowledge1253 (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I hope you consider contributing to Wikipedia in a more collaborative way in the future. It's a very rewarding endeavor! Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how can i edit --Madzunye (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Madzunye: Welcome to Wikipedia! If you'd like, I can walk you through your first edit. What article would you like to work on? Or check out the Task Center, and pick a task! Otherwise, you should consider the fun Wikipedia Adventure. What do you think? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay! Knowledge1253 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. The Big Narrows were mentioned on the article. The Big Narrows is where Pearl Beach is. And where the "erratics" are. Knowledge1253 (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The inline citation appeared to be sourcing the Tom Pearl thing, which I couldn't find in the source. There is no reason to insert that link in the middle of that sentence like that. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ask one question; if I want to report a group of IP addresses for sockpuppet for an IP address in related, how would I do? And I also have someone who have been blocked for sockpuppet and how would I advise my someone to do appeal after it was unsuccessful? --SReader65 (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SReader65: Hi and welcome. There are different ways to open a sockpuppet investigation. To do it manually, you will need to know which is the oldest IP address of the group making edits. You will then need some evidence (in the form of diffs). Then go to Sockpuppet Investigations and scroll down to "How to open an investigation". There, you will enter the oldest IP address of the group. Let me know if you need help doing this. As for appealing blocks, I recommend reading about on this page. If you want an opinion on that particular case, feel free to share the details and perhaps I can help. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pyrrho! With regard to the evidence you submitted here: I don't believe that one editor breaking the canvassing rules once is relevant enough to consider in an arbitration case, which will base remedies only on long-term patterns of disruption. Moreover, the editor in question was warned for the behavior, so unless the behavior has been repeated since it seems an inappropriate case of non bis in idem to report it like this. Such evidence serves only as a distraction to the arbitrators, and as such will not help any case you may want to make. I would like to ask you to consider retracting the evidence. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that and I understand. I acted in error (and apologize to the parties mentioned). I will remove. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Well, Apaugasma you did no better, posting in your evidence diffs of mine which purport to show I was "ignoring the POV of academic expert" (by which you mean the esteemed E. Ernst) - when they show no such thing, my points were orthogonal to his views. I suggest you retract this dishonesty. If not I will have to submit my own evidence showing your falsity for what it is. Alexbrn (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Alexbrn: I do believe that Ernst's POV was ignored. In the work (Ernst 2013, also linked in the evidence) that we were discussing at the time, Ernst argues that qi has no place in science because it is not empirically verifiable, explicitly comparing it with God. His view is that, like the existence of God, the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven. The idea that anything that is not empirically verifiable does not exist or is merely imaginary is a specific philosophical position associated with positivism and scientific skepticism. That is why a skeptic like Harriet Hall will tend to speak of it as nonexistent or imaginary rather than unverifiable. Ernst, on the other hand, does not speak of it like that, because he realizes that positively affirming that Qi does not exist belongs to the realm of opinion just as much as affirming that God does not exist. Though his personal (positivist/skeptic and atheist) opinion clearly shines through, as a scholar he treats the subject in a disinterested way. We should follow this academic, scholarly treatment of the subject, not the positivist/skeptic treatment as published on a blog (Science-Based Medicine).

  You and others (I do not at all wish to single you out, just to point to the wider phenomenon) were arguing on that talk page that SBM would somehow not be WP:PARTISAN and that we should follow the POV represented there, meanwhile ignoring the repeated pointers to Ernst 2013. It's a clear-cut case of breaching NPOV to promote the skeptic (in this case more specifically, positivist) POV on Wikipedia. In the end that part came out okay (the article currently says that neither qi nor meridians exist as observable phenomena, citing and quoting Ernst 2013, which is perfect), but the amount of non-policy based resistance to this really was problematic. You may of course submit your own evidence if you wish. Do mind though that it should relate to what was happening with regard to policy in the discussion at the time. We should not discuss the content itself on the ArbCom page. Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I have no wish to revisit your (wrong) argument: that was settled by good consensus. I am simply pointing out your diffs are dishonest as they do not demonstrate what you say they do. Alexbrn (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Apaugasma I see another editor has picked-up your problem evidence. It is really not a good idea to submit evidence to arbcom which is transparently false. Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Objection to the evidence does not make it "problem evidence" or "transparently false". The diffs are provided and arbcom can make those judgments. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It is not the "objection" which makes it false; it is false because it's false. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Not even the objecting editor called any of that "false". I'm not sure what you think is false about pointing out obvious incivility. But you're welcome to share an example. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • What? I'm not objecting to anything to do with "incivility". Alexbrn (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I see you're referring to Ernst thing only. In that case, it looks like there was a lengthy discussion on that and no firm consensus, nor did the objecting editor call it "false", but encouraged more nuance and context. That's a big leap to go from that to "transparently false". Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Re it is false because it's false: see proof by assertion. Please don't do that. I explained my reasoning, so either engage with that in good faith, or just agree to disagree –which would be more than fine by me! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Editors are meant to be presenting evidence not the result of flawed "reasoning" (Any "analysis" you might want to attempt, must be done on the /Workshop page). Anyway, your assertions have been called out by another editor so too late to withdraw (but amendment is possible). Alexbrn (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Just because you assert that my reasoning is flawed does not make it so. I just asked you not to do that. Since this ventures into WP:PA territory, I will ask you clearly: please don't make any more unsubstantiated comments about the quality of my reasoning. I would certainly be willing to withdraw my evidence (I could strike it) if you would demonstrate that it is false. You have not even attempted to do that. Repeatedly calling it "wrong", "dishonest", "transparantly false" does not make it so. If you're not willing to make an argument, that's fine, really! Perhaps the Arbs will see that it's wrong without anyone making any argument. I very much respect you as an editor, so please let's just keep this constructive. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Your so-called "reasoning" is wrong, and pointing that out is not a PA. Asserting that I "ignored" a source is false, because I know it to be false from my own recollection. It is also provably false: you claim your diff is evidence that I was "again ignoring Ernst's POV". But the diff shows nothing of the sort, and indeed I was discussing that very source, and Ernst's very POV, in the discussion above; not "ignoring" it. You're twisting things, and I find that deplorable. Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • The first diff shows me making an argument literally quoting Ernst's POV multiple times, and you replying to that without one word about Ernst's POV. The second diff shows you saying "so long as we also have something like "qi/meridians do not exist" we'll be good", as if you didn't read the Ernst source nor my repeated quotes (like the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven) from it. Now you may believe that Ernst really somehow means to say that qi does not exist, but you did not try to argue that either. You did not engage with my interpretation of Ernst, you did not argue against it, you just ignored Ernst. As far as I can see, the closest you come to discussing Ernst's POV is here, where you seem to have inferred from Ernst's saying that concepts such as qi are myths which enjoy the same status as religious faiths that we should state in wiki-voice that qi does not exist, despite what Ernst says just a few sentences later about its nonexistence being unprovable, and despite the fact that we would never state such things in wiki-voice about religious or mythical concepts. Of course, I go on to point out all these things in my later comment, but from there on (the diffs above) you just start to ignore anything said about Ernst.

              So I have explained myself once more. I suspect that you object to my claiming you 'ignored' Ernst's POV because you disagree with me about what Ernst's POV really is. It's the kind of thing that makes content issues so intractable, and the reason why admins as well as Arbs tend to not assign much weight to them. I cited it in my evidence as part of a larger phenomenon of misidentifying the skeptic POV as by definition equal to the POV of reliable sources. Of course you disagree, that's to be expected. But I do see an issue, and I reported it. I think that's fair. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

              • More slime. By selectively quoting me to omit the "Wikipedia can say other things ..." and ignoring the fact that I was taking issue with plagiarism of Ernst's exact words (which shows I must have read it), you yet again twist things. You have shown your colours. Alexbrn (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I need more people to help me editing as I have too much to do myself. I see that you responded to me on the teahouse page. Could you please make infoboxes for these articles Betty Lalam and Duan Weihong. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222 Online events: New: Black women | Hong Kong and Macau | Women in sport Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Pyrrho the Skipper for copy edits totaling over 12,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 4th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Pyrrho the Skipper for copyediting 1 long article during the GOCE January 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dhtwiki: Thank you! Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there, sorry for the late reply, but circumstances are beyond my control.

From the reply in the past, I like to ask for some help on helping to unblock some users from block as they have clearly prove innocent but then the administrators refuse to lift them concerning safety. Apparently, there has been some evidence but then they could not be proofed. I not only need some assistance, but to other as well as we can support the case, and fearing that I will be accused of using sockpuppet account from other previously blocked accounts, there is something that there needs to be done, and particularly, a user in conflict needs to be settled. I will not go into detail until the time is right, but right now, I asking some questions first.

I am new to Wikipedia but I do not know where to begin, but to learn the rules and not to commit the mistake again from other friends or accounts, learning has been an experience.

Thank you. SReader65 (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SReader65: I'm open to discussing this in more detail, but if this dispute involves other editors, you might consider simply moving on. Since you are a new editor, as you say, then getting involved in disputes where editors are being blocked might not be the most fruitful use of your time. If you truly want to help the encyclopedia, there are many, many articles that need your help. Let me know if you'd like me to point you to those. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

​ I was intending on helping that someone a senior to clear their name from the dispute and want to tell that the user that is against it was at wrong and wishes to be served justice, the user was not a sockpuppet and in fact there was another user who was manipulating it and that the system checked that it was sockpuppet but the user wasn't framed for.

Well, since there are many articles that needs help, I go for random ones first or those with interest. Thanks for the advice. SReader65 (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225 Online events: New: Women's History Month Art+Activism | Feminism and Folklore | Dutch Caribbean Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman | Women in sport (Feb/Mar) Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

I grew up in a family of vegetarians and was a vegan for many years. We used "home remedies" and had various alternative medical beliefs. We used homeopathy and dietary supplements, juicing, wheat grass, etc. My mother, who was a nurse, got breast cancer and tried to treat herself rather than going to a doctor. I remember when we drove her to Mexico to a cancer quack clinic (we didn't think of it that way at the time). She received a dietary regimen, dietary supplements, enemas, and electrical treatments, likely some type of Rife device. She died a horrible death and left an impoverished family. My wife's family suffered a very similar fate when her mother-in-law (father's second marriage) got breast cancer and followed a similar route. He later died poor.

I have two mainstream medical educations and my wife has three, but our Physician Assistant education bears special mention. My wife and I both took a Physician Assistant course (the profession was in its infancy at the time) at a health care center operated by a small team of physicians. The doctors at this place were vegetarians and believed in lots of alternative medicine ideas, including limiting the use of normal medications as much as possible. We treated the patients with diet, exercise, meditation, herbs, hydrotherapy, enemas and high colonics, fever therapy, electrical zapper devices, etc. When all else failed, we "trusted in God." For some people, this was actually an improvement on their normal (typical American diet and lifestyle, which is horrible) lives, and it helped them. For others, it was the thing that literally killed them and deprived them of the chance to get some of the radical help they really needed. Many cancers, when caught early enough, are often curable, but we blocked that route by offering them false hope. The people who worked there were well-meaning, but ignorant, true believers.

The center was an IM place, long before AM and IM were terms in common use. Some of our patients needed lifestyle changes, and we did help many of them, but most of our patients had exhausted the mainstream options and were desperate for hope. This place offered them that hope, and took the rest of the money their families had. One could say I've "been there and done that." I have seen all this from the inside and have a very different perspective now that I have had more scientific and medical education. I was ignorant of the issues at the time, and now know the science-based side of the question. -- Valjean (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fascinating! Thanks for sharing that. Clearly, you are well-equipped to understand the full scope of these debates. That's what's needed, I think. An understanding of how all these things fit together. It's horribly sad to see people needlessly suffer and/or die because they refuse modern medicine. I also find it sad to see people needlessly suffer from anxiety because they refuse to try some kind of simple mindfulness meditation type of thing that might help them. Ultimately, I've never encountered more thoughtful, curious, and level-headed community of people than I have on Wikipedia. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I like to answer some questions that pertain to Sockpuppet and want to help that someone who previously blocked from edit to reinstate the rights as the user wants to clear their name from it, and that instead want to block that another user because of the kind of abuse and selfishness. However, to avoid possible conflicts, the names or anything will have to be given privately, if that is possible. I also need the help of some other people as well. --SReader65 (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you've asked me this before. I don't understand what kind of help you need. Could you just say "I need someone to do X for me"? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but because I can't find the question since it was previously archived, I had to redo the question. I need someone to do report one particular user and at the same time, unblock another user for me. I also need assistance from some Singaporean editors since the affected user was also a Singaporean (from what I heard). SReader65 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay a few follow-up questions/comments:

What did the user you want to report do wrong?

I am not an admin so I cannot unblock anyone

What difference does it make if the users helping are Singaporean? You could visit Project Singapore.

Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understand, I was just asking this question because I do not know. Understand the question from here, the user that was blocked want to report the user who did wrong by reverting most of, if not all, the edits as it claimed to be less relevant by the user views, and the user also was into dispute so easily. I do not want to interfere, but asking for advice.

I also had asked Project Singapore, but I try again. Thank you. SReader65 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228 Online events: New: Gender studies | French overseas territories New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month by registering in the box at the top of our main page. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

Hello Mentor, I'm Reese. This might sound like a silly question to ask since I just begun today, but are Americans allowed to make anime? If you don't know how to answer this question it's no problem at all. I was just wondering because I have big dreams for the future. I hope you have a wonderful night!!!

Your's truly, Reese Matthews --ReeseMatthews (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I just looked it up right here and apparently, Americans can make "anime-influenced animation," but to be called "anime" it must be made in Japan. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Pyrrho the Skipper. I noticed your attempt to fix a ping in this edit. Unfortunately, that method does not work. The notifications system only informs a user when you link their username in the same saved edit as you successfully sign your post. A ping cannot be fixed in a later edit by adding your signature or fixing a botched username. Instead, reference the user by adding [[User:Example]] to an edit summary, or use one of the other methods at Help:Fixing failed pings. 💜  melecie  talk - 00:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh I see! Thanks for being a helpful Wikipedian. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help us country . Sri lanka --Shenu 99 (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pyrro, it's me again. I currently was handling an article that have poorly edited quality in Wikipedia but the user made some more edits that had a poor quality edit (and even reported to ANI). I really do not want to cause any trouble because all I did was a good faith. Is there something you can advise on? Thank you. --SReader65 (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi SReader65, I'm sorry to hear you're encountering this. Remember that Wikipedia is a collaboration. Editors will not always agree on what is good and bad editing, and we must always assume good faith from other editors, too. If someone is being disruptive or vandalizing, you can use warnings on their Talk Page and report them to admins. If they're merely editing in a way you disagree with, follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If you can tell me what article you are experiencing this on, I may be able to offer more specific help. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pardon for the late reply, but I was busy. Anyway, the article that I came across the issue is Star Awards 2022 which has poorly-editing quality (I seek help with the WikiProject Singapore since it was a Singaporean article, but they handled it well). I really wished the article follow the manual style or template compared to other awards-related articles such as the Academy Awards. SReader65 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please point to something specific that you think is "poor quality"? It's difficult to discuss quality of edits without examples of edits. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For example, titles or name of series are not properly italicized, typing one as 1, or with excessive trivial topics. Apparently the user did not study Manual of style.SReader65 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, that's better. However, I've searched the page and can't find what you're talking about. Are you looking at the English version? Could you paste the sentences where these style errors are occurring? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I referred to the English version, but the backlog can tell more about it (this one was before I came to the article). SReader65 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So the article is better now? If so, then mission accomplished. Now you can move on to other tasks on Wikipedia or continue trying to improve that article. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to be famous --KimodoMsafi (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @KimodoMsafi:. Are you asking about how to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pyrrho, nice to meet you. I was hoping to continue this discussion[25] with you but it was archived before I had a chance to respond. You wrote that the draft seems notable, and then another editor expressed some concerns. Do you agree? I will note that the example mentioned at the WP:Teahouse wasn't one of the sources which I thought might indicate notability- I had focused instead on the coverage at Wired, Inc.com, Bloomberg and Fast Company as WP:SIGCOV. I'd love to get your feedback on this, and if you think the draft is in fact ready to be included, for you to move it to mainspace. Thanks for looking into this, AJ at Innovation Endeavors (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AJ at Innovation Endeavors: In my personal opinion I think it's mostly in good enough shape to at least be submitted, though you may want to consider finding a better source than calcalistech for those statements, if possible. Another editor disagreed, though, and their opinion should be equally considered. I do not have new article review rights or admin rights so there this is little I can do other than perhaps add my two cents somewhere on the draft submission. But I think you should go ahead and submit it and see what happens. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pyrrho, thanks for getting back to me about this! I'd love for you to add your two cents- maybe as an AfC comment if that's appropriate here? Thanks again for your help! AJ at Innovation Endeavors (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AJ at Innovation Endeavors:I added a comment on the Talk Page, as I believe that without new page reviewer rights, I am prohibited from making an "official" comment on the draft. I could be wrong, and you're welcome to ask someone about that, but I added the Talk Page comment nevertheless. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cant create user page please help --Theories of scientists (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theories of scientists: You have a user page! Just click on your name. If you want to add stuff there, than simply edit that page and add what you'd like. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hwy43:, @Meters: The McGarry, Ontario saga continues. I have requested page protection. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see what you mean. Multiple pointless talk page threads. Article is now protected. Meters (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would you request page protection, then turn around and revert info that was updated to reflect current circumstances? The township voted in a new Mayor, easily fact checked, why did you retain outdated info on whom the mayor is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:34A:BC69:3E87:18EA:9862:D8E9 (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The saga continues. After having the same mayor for over 25 years, since 2019 there have been three. Got another new mayor last month, and the mayor from before the mayor of last year is on council. So basically, council member became mayor, mayor became council mayor. A switch of roles for roll call, lol!! 2605:B100:D21:5A51:F55D:5692:7CF6:263F (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Self-declared sock of user:Knowledge1253 [26] Meters (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Meters Thank you, that article remains on my watchlist. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've set up autoarchiving on the talk page to reduce the number of old threads the LTA can go back to. Meters (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Pyrrho, Is there any promotion if I made over 10+ contributions..? --Jessicaaylen (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, accounts four days old that have made 10 edits or more are autoconfirmed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you help me in creating an article for a person? --Jessicaaylen (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jessicaaylen: I'd be happy to. I highly suggest you read this page first. Your subject may or may not be notable enough, or notable enough yet, for Wikipedia, so it's good to determine that first so you don't waste your time! I'm happy to help as needed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230 Online events: New: Women in the Ancient World | British Overseas Territories Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest (second month) Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikimedia District of Columbia: 100 DC Women contest The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

Hi Pyrrho the Skipper! I believe you are my awesome new mentor. I am an artist and would love to create a Wikipedia page about myself. Is that something you could help me with?

I don't want to break any Wikipedia rules so I know I am going to need some guidance to make sure I do it correctly. I have recently worked with clients such as Samuel L Jackson and think it is time I start showing a better online presence for my work.

Thanks in advance and I look forward to working with you! Matt

P.S. Here are a few links that will help you know a bit more about me and my work

https://www.retrodesignco.co.uk/

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/people/samuel-l-jackson-and-keanu-reeves-give-thumbs-up-to-south-yorkshire-artist-3604150

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/my-journey-design-matthew-heald/

https://blog.designbyhumans.com/blog/a-fireside-chat-with-retro-review-pro-tips-for-designers

https://blog.designbyhumans.com/blog/guest-blog-retro-review-the-all-over-christmas-sweaters --Retrodesignco (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Retrodesignco: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for reaching out! I will be glad to help (as much as I can) more thoroughly when I have a moment, but I would suggest adding these two sources to your list of media covering you and your company:

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/tv/barnsley-man-starts-making-shirts-23349427

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/arts-and-culture/film-and-tv/samuel-l-jackson-and-keanu-reeves-wearing-yorkshire-artists-t-shirts-3607126

The LinkedIn Pulse and DesignByHumans sources may be applicable for some information, but probably not for general notabililty, where you want the independence of traditional news coverage. So the more of those types of coverage, the better. Also, it's often best when a subject does not write their own article, for obvious reasons, but sometimes it's unavoidable. I may be able to help, there, though, if it turns out you meet the general notability requirements. I think you have a pretty good case for an article about yourself or your company. Other editors may disagree, though. Happy to help as soon as I have a moment. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, i'm trying to begin editing but i don't really understand the instructions --TarzanIQ (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm happy to help as much as I can. I recommend you start with something simple, like fixing typos or adding Wikilinks. Would you like to try? I'm happy to provide an article that needs minor edits. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, how do I create a Wikipedia page? --Tacotime431 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tacotime, I recommend reading this page. Creating an article should only be done if you know your subject will pass the general notability guidelines. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pyrrho the Skipper. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hii --Rubal Rajput (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Greenland and the Faroes | Women in music Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest (third and last month) Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

Hello mentor, may you please help me in publishing my draft?

I spent my lot of time and hard work, and it is not valid to publish.

Please help. Thank you. --Ian Tin (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft link: [27] Ian Tin (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ian Tin: Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia and nice work gathering sources for your article. Your article is not likely to be published anytime soon, for reasons laid out in WP:EVENTCRITERIA and Let the Dust Settle. Because the event happened so recently, it is too soon to determine if the event is notable enough for inclusion. I recommend you wait a year and see if this event is still being discussed by the media. I highly encourage you to stick around though, and try editing some exisitng articles, as volunteering here can be very fun and fulfilling. Let me know if you have further questions. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Pyro, Can you help me in creating an article related to the black holes? --Jessicaaylen (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jessicaaylen: I may be able to help. If this is your first article, have you read the "Your First Article" page yet? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I've read that... Jessicaaylen (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:@Jessicaaylen: Excellent. So what do you need help with? Have you gathered the sources you need, and are ready to create a draft? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I'd created an article about the theory related blackholes but when I submit it's getting rejected and I don't know how to resolve the issue. I've linked 8-10 reference list about the news articles which I found on web. Can you help me with this..? Jessicaaylen (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears the sources you provided do not establish notability. Newsanddc.com is not a WP:RELIABLE source. Do you have additional sources from reliable, independent, third-parties that establish notability? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I add a profile picture on my Wikipedia account? --Wilson Manishimwe (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you like to add one of yourself, or something else? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Pyrrho and others that might read this - I've never used the talk page before and never written anything that was contested before so hope this actually communicates with you. If so, could you give me a little feedback on what you think is wrong with my latest suggested addition? I've tried to keep it factual, neutral in tone, well referenced, short, and significant.

FYI, I am not representing the company and I doubt its current management would be interested in what its previous management did on the environment. I was involved in the work at that time, and I think it is important corporate environmental history.

Please let know your thoughts. I've love to have a concensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelucidity (talk • contribs) 12:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pelucidity: Thank you for coming here to ask. I'll try to help. Since you say you were "involved with the work" you technically have a conflict of interest, so it's hard for us to assume neutrality in your edits. Nevertheless, the reason your latest edits continue to get reverted are because you were circumventing the bold, revert, discuss cycle by not taking your edit to the Talk Page after it was reverted. The content itself is a different story, but myself and others felt that the additions you wanted to make were simply a company talking about what it wants to do (which is just PR), rather than its actual record, which was the point of the section. If you do not know how to start a new conversation on the Talk Page, I am happy to do that and tag you so you can see and respond. All editors are welcome but Wikipedia is a collaboration, so we all need to work together. I hope that helps. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pyrrho - I'm happy to talk although I'm not clear how to do it and hope this works. Could you please begin by telling me what your concerns are about my latest proposed addition? I am not representing the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelucidity (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just started a new section on the Talk Page for Waste Management and tagged you. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Yes, please start a new conversation on the Talk Page and tag. Perhaps some more context from me will be helpful. Pelucidity (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pelucidity: I already have. It's at the bottom on this page. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to add my details in it --Senthil Kumar ponmudi (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you tell me what you're talking about? Thanks! Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Pyrrho the Skipper,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000^[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.^[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, ((NPP backlog)), to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 10888 articles, as of 12:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing ((subst:NPR invite)) on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pyrrho the Skipper. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. – Joe (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235 Online events: New: Alphabet Run: A to B | Baltic States Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green's Good Article Editathon: July 2022 – Women and the Environment Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

i know the advice is plastered all over the WP: pages, but you might be the first user i've seen that actually does it (at least for an ip editor).

yeah, i may be going overboard, but it's been interesting how many bureaucratic hoops i've had to jump through to make a single small edit on a single page.

makes me wonder how wikipedia has content at all haha 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I try. Many of us have dealt with some serious resistance to seriously uncontroversial edits in the fringe space in the past, and what I find most helpful is simply to start an RfC about a minor point, phrased neutrally, and let outside opinions help establish a consensus. It's a pain, but I think it's the only way. Sometimes it doesn't go the way we hoped, and then, at the very least, it might be a learning experience. Anyway, we all need space to learn and grow and I hope you create an account, and stick around. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah I've definitely learned a ton. Honestly I'm not sure how I've been on the internet this long without knowing the inner-workings of possibly the largest open, collaborative site in existence. I was hesitant to use RfC at first because the WP: page said it was a very time consuming so idk it sounded very serious, but I will take that advice in the future if I ever edit again (tbh after this ordeal I may never, I'm not sure the site deserves improving).

As for making an account, I might not be allowed to (see my talk page).

Thanks again 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Mediator Barnstar
		For treating everyone like a human even during tough debates involving the biggest and smallest. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, that's a kind gesture. Made my day better. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I think I changed my mind. I stepped outside of the zefr-sphere for a bit and saw some good things. Other decent editors. Things I can improve for tens of thousands of readers, and without being ridiculed, reverted and blocked. Things worth improving. And they need it badly.

As for medical articles... It's a lost cause. I hope people don't seriously use WP as a source of medical information, and even more so after this. Talk to your doctor instead. They're smarter than doctors that spend all day doing janitorial copy-editing and arguing online. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there is always plenty to do here. And you're a good editor. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, 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. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. 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.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me know how can i add more information in health niche articles, i am a beginner at wekipedia, plz let me know --Himanshujain99 (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Himanshujain99: Do you know how to edit an article in general? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239 Online events: New: Alphabet run: C and D | Indigenous women | Refugees | Comedians, Comics and other Performers Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration focus on UEFA Women's Euro 2022, August 8–21 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This award is given to Pyrrho the Skipper for 17 reviews in the July NPP backlog reduction drive. Your contributions played a part in the 9895 reviews that took place during the drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zippybonzo: Thank you. Happy to help, and glad to see so much participation from editors. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public ki life kya h --Vijaysingh05 (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Rusty4321. I'm having problems with a user that keeps deleting my work on a page and knowingly putting false information on it. The user has nominated the page for deletion several times, and when it was voted "keep" then she deleted most of the information to leave the page as bare bones as possible. It's like some personal vendetta against the subject or something racially motivated because she seems obsessed about changing the subject's nationality.

I added and cited new info, and corrected some critical mistakes on the page, but she keeps saying the sources are not reliable... but they are major media outlets like The Economist and NBC News.

Here you can see the history of the page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jorge_Thielen_Armand&action=history

If you can let me know if I'm doing something wrong, or what I can do about it, that would be greatly appreciated !

Thanks --Candelex5 (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Candelex5: I'm not sure if you meant this for @Rusty4321: or me, but I have restored the page to the version before the editor removed content. Please remember to assume good faith, however. I will watch the article, and jump into discussion if need be because I think the article was fine before the editor removed content. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Pyrrho the Skipper,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing ((subst:NPR invite)) on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I apply for section 8? --Elia1973 (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elia1973: What's a section 8? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pyrrho the Skipper,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to know the best way to make a Wikipedia article on a person who is not known well in the public eye. --Larry432 (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Larry432 That's not possible. If you want to write about someone not in the public eye, use social media. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have information on the person im researching but it is newspapers that other people who do not have the newspapers. Larry432 (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newspapers do not need to be online, they need only to be publicly available. A printed copy in a library is fine. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241 Online events: New: Alphabet run: E and F | Women writers and their works Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Request for help: Participate in preparations for our trend-setting contest in November Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

Hello Pyrrho, Happy to be mentored by you. Looking forward. Thanks. --SHARATHSHA07 (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you hoping to work on? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. How are you? Thanks for being my mentor. How can I delete an image? I added an image to the page last night, however, it is not in the right place. I tried to delete it but could not, so I added the same image again. Now there are two images (portraits). I have minimized the second portrait and you can hardly see it. It is below the election stat. How do I permanently delete it (its like a small dot now)

Thanks

How do I --Bobajiroro (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed it. You just have to delete the line that has "File:" in it. It should be good now. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Bobajiroro (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can’t edit my contribution --DennisTlawrence (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only contributions I see from you are on you Talk Page. Is that what you mean? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi There! I have noted some errors on the John R. Park Homestead Conservation Area page, incorrectly identifying it as a stop on the Underground Railroad. I've made the correction (as the citation actually relates to the Park House in Amherstburg, but would like to actually remove the subheading from the listing entirely to eliminate confusion. Thanks for any guidance you can provide. --EssexRegionConservation (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @EssexRegionConservation:. You can simply go into "Edit Source" and delete the following:

==Underground Railroad==

[[File:Levi Veney, ex-slave who lived in Amherstburg, Ontario (I0024830) (cropped).tiff|thumb|Levi Veney, ex-slave who lived in Amherstburg, Ontario. Taken at J. D. Burkes’ general store, [ca. 1898]]] :After crossing the border between the United States and Canada, the Park House in Amherstburg offered protection and shelter upon entering Upper Canada, now Ontario.<ref name="BH">((Cite web |title=Black History-From Slavery to Settlement |url=http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/explore/online/alvin_mccurdy/settlement.aspx |access-date=2021-06-06 |website=www.archives.gov.on.ca))</ref> One of the [[freedom seekers]] who came through the Park House in Amherstburg was a former enslaved man, Levi Veney.<ref name="BH" />

Let me know if you need more help. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi pls intervene on third opinion, pls check talk pages of User_talk:Ab207 and Cinema of India. Fostera12 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Pyrrho the Skipper, as you gave your input regarding the issue of the article Cinema of India, can you also give your inputs or opinion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jayanthkumar123 and Fostera12. This user Fostera12 is blaming and making personal attacks against me saying that I have added promotional stuff. Also, the user always exaggerate the things. I have clearly stated everything and pinged three users, out of which two of them seemed to be non-administrators. Hoping for resolving the issue soon, as I have already decided to pause my edits on Wikipedia. Thank you. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol | October 2022 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 patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. 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.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244 Online events: New: Alphabet run: G and H | Women in STEM / Ada Lovelace Day | Geofocus West Asia Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green's "Wildcard Edition" Good Article editathon Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

Hi I was wondering if you could review my draft --DennisTlawrence (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DennisTlawrence Thanks for reaching out. It's a pretty good draft, though you will need to rewrite a bit for style/tone, move the image to the right side of the page, and add more sources as references for notability. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is all considered as sources? DennisTlawrence (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DennisTlawrence You will need more sources similar to the one you have already added. News coverage or other coverage in the media from independent, third party outlets. You can read all about sourcing here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are receiving this message because you signed up to participate in the drive, but have not yet reviewed any pages in October. We would love to see you over at the backlog drive! Buidhe 10:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reminder! Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Pyrrho the Skipper,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

A few days ago, new page patrollers got the backlog to zero. Due to the unprecedented success of the backlog drive, it will be ending early—at the end of 24 October, or in approximately two hours.

Barnstars will be awarded as soon as the coords can tally the results. Streak awards will be allocated based on the first three weeks of the drive, with the last three days being counted as part of week three.

Great work everyone! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247 Online events: New: Alphabet run: I and J | Women in Education | Geofocus Central & Southern Asia Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikipedia Asian Month November Contest Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This award is given to Pyrrho the Skipper for collecting more than 10 points doing reviews and re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A successful drive. Thanks! Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that this ping won't have worked, because the ping & the signature need to be made in the same edit, see WP:PING. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh right, I feel like I was told that before and promptly forgot. Thanks! Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does a topic that has been on the article's talk page for a mere 14 [incorrectly entered as 4] hours possibly qualify as "thoroughly discussed on the article talk page"? How about actually leaving the topic long enough for other editors to see it and respond before accepting a 3O? Meters (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Meters I would take that up with the user who posted the 3O, not me. But the discussion seemed like a stalemate to me, and I doubt that Talk Page is going to see much activity. Either way, I agreed with you, so why are you mad? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not mad. I just think that it was premature to take it to 3O, and that you should not have accepted it as having been thoroughly discussed. Meters (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meh. I don't really see the difference between me (some random editor) commenting from a 3O and some random editor seeing it on the Talk Page organically, and providing an opinion. It's just a 3O. It's not rule of law. Further discussion can still happen. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I've just recently joined wiki and tried my best in editing and I've got a question. I tired adding a reaction scheme to a page. I made it myself and it was similar to the other ones, but not the same as the other ones didn't look into stereochemistry which mine did. As i tried uploading this is said that "Wikipedia commons doies not accept it" and later after adding some tags to it, is said that it "looks like something similar is already there". Did I do something wrong? --Wawrinaaa (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wawrinaaa Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry to hear that you've been having challenges. What you're attempting to do seems like something that should be discussed on either the article Talk Page, or at Project Chemistry Talk Page. The latter may be best, since it seems pretty active. If you don't get an answer in a few days, feel free to come back here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I create an article about myself? --Ahmedayusuf (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subjects are strongly encouraged to not write articles about themselves, as it's nearly impossible to write about oneself from a neutral point of view. The article must also contain multiple, independent, reliable sources to justify notability. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I wanted to create a Wikipedia page about one temple, which is already verified by Google business. --JimmyTrivedi (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, what do you need help with? Note that being "verified" by Google business does not imply notability for an article. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what should I do? Should I create it or not? JimmyTrivedi (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JimmyTrivedi First, make sure that your temple is not already covered in an article here, and then ask yourself if it meets the notability requirements of having more than a passing mention in multiple independent, reliable sources. Then, I suggest you read this page. If you have questions a long the way, feel free to reach out! Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pyrrho the SkipperI believe that this is popular, can you tell me from where to start? JimmyTrivedi (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JimmyTrivedi If you've read the pages I shared with you, and you believe the subject is notable, I suggest starting here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250 Online events: New: Alphabet run K & L | Geofocus Southeast Asia | Women who died in 2022 Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Climate Change collaboration runs 1 December 2022 - 31 January 2023 Tip of the month: Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name, like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

actor policia alguna peliculas --Oscar lnn (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

En que lo puedo ayudar? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November songs

... for a constructive comment in the Laurence Olivier RfC, to which I referred in my arbcand questions. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad that RfC turned out the way it did. That was a weird one. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi mentor, what do you think about this, I would add more if this is approved. I just want to make sure you think it fits WP:ACADEMIC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_P._Wilkinson_(chemical_engineer_scientist_)

Thanks!

Thanks! --Singularitywiki (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Singularitywiki It's a decent article, but it reads a bit promotional. I might go through and copyedit a bit. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Singularitywiki (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]