Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

asking for help with SARS articles, because I'm not sure where you like to talk. "Thank you! I'm 'technically challenged' (read 'ignorant') when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts and appreciate whatever you have in mind. Some articles are * Timeline of the SARS outbreak, * Jiang Yanyong, and * Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus. Many Thanks, Shir-El too 19:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)"

Shir-El too I replied to you at WikiProject Medicine - I think it's best to keep the discussion there so more people can see it. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Off the record: *Google staff reported spikes in recent searches for "beer virus" and "Corona beer virus"... (true!). *What do a woman and a tea bag have in common? You don't know how strong they are until you put them in hot water!* Cheers! Shir-El too 13:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That's the good stuff. :^) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I keep getting editing/revert messages you are signed-off on, about something called Template:Shock_types. I don't have a clue what it's about. Jokes:

• I used to breed rabbits. Then I realized they can handle it themselves.
• Don't trust atoms: they make up everything!

Cheers! Shir-El too 19:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC) PS *Did you hear about the semi-colon that broke the law? He received two consecutive sentences...

Shir-El too Thanks for the jokes :) I reverted your edit here [1] because you edited someone else's talk page comment - maybe it was a mistake? That must be what the messages are about. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

That IS puzzling: I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE EDITED SOMEONE ELSE'S COMMENTS!!! Only articles! Is someone playing around with the programing? Because NO ONE has my password, I don't use a mobile and don't save it anywhere. Who should I take this up with? Cheers! Shir-El too 17:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC) PS Q: What's the difference between ignorance and apathay? A: I don't know and I don't care!

Shir-El too Yeah, it's probably a good idea to change your password, especially since this just happened... [2] SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
• Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
• Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
• Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
• CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D, Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chagas disease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
• Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
• The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
• Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
• Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for all of your help to make the Dr. Mouritz article a great resource. I really appreciate all the editing that you did. WeavingGrace (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for writing it, it was an interesting read. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

... I made a total of one edit to that article, but thanks, bot. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure this is vandalism (G3)? I disagree. Vandalism is bad-faith but autobiographies, however promotional in tone, is good-faith. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Eumat114, I am pretty sure that a draft saying a BLP subject has spent most of his life chasing girls with small breast and sits there in silence with his microphone on listening to the entire conversation and breathing heavily. is vandalism. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

SpicyMilkBoy, sorry for missing this. Thanks! Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Do u really have to delete the page I made for someone like first of all it's a draft and second it's not behind sent anywhere for publicity Ft.Trunks (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Promotional material is not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia. There are many other sites where you can post that type of content. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
473		Vicar (talk)	Add sources
154		KOH test (talk)	Add sources
127		IMViC (talk)	Add sources
698		Hemolysis (talk)	Add sources
71		Analytical profile index (talk)	Add sources
29		Mohan (legendary) (talk)	Add sources
1,042		Brandon Curry (talk)	Cleanup
2,805		Disinfectant (talk)	Cleanup
8		Lionel Leventhal (talk)	Cleanup
145		Asplenia (talk)	Expand
172		2010 Guatemala City sinkhole (talk)	Expand
60		Eye dropper (talk)	Expand
110		Isolation (microbiology) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
180		Hot plate (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
704		Multimeter (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3,416		COVID-19 apps (talk)	Merge
213		Digital contact tracing (talk)	Merge
16		NmVac4-A/C/Y/W-135 (talk)	Merge
175		Heterophile antibody test (talk)	Wikify
15		Relationship education (talk)	Wikify
74		Nutritional anemia (talk)	Wikify
2		Clark R. Landis (talk)	Orphan
13		Sulphide Indole Motility medium (talk)	Orphan
2		Olafs Daugulis (talk)	Orphan
140		Viral culture (talk)	Stub
135		CAMP test (talk)	Stub
70		Citrate test (talk)	Stub
2		Alfred L. Wilds (talk)	Stub
124		Clinophilia (talk)	Stub
15		Yoshito Kishi (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For you and Ajpolino, what a fine and persistent effort you both put in to restoring Featured article status to Chagas disease during Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chagas disease/archive1. Very nice work indeed; wear the on your user page, because the save belongs to you! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy, I couldn't have done it without you :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thank you for your work on that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I've been tricked many times by upes, socks and spammers as some are very devious and have been around undetected for up to a decade or more, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic306, thanks for the reply. I'm not entirely sure about that one and I think it could have been posted in good faith, but there's some interesting stuff going on on the related pages. Notability looks borderline on a second glance - I assumed there would be more than what's in the article when I reviewed it because of the claims of significance and the fact that it is rather impressive looking, but there isn't much. Although one decent looking source was just added and the crap source was removed. Meh... I try to avoid reviewing drafts on anything with commercial implications because I don't like playing this sort of guessing game, but the subject of the article had me thinking in WP:NBUILD mode instead of WP:NCORP mode. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks hugely for your help in reviewing Wilfred Newton for the first time! Turini2 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem Turini2, nice work on the article :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi SpicyMilkBoy, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi SpicyMilkBoy. 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 17:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

w00t! Congrats! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've made the edits to Draft:Richard T. Davies, thanks! CatchedY (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

CatchedY, thanks; I see that the Washington Post source names Glyn as his son, but we also need a source for Glyn's positions. After that the draft should be good to accept. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	thank you! CatchedY (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Complete blood count you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tom (LT) -- Tom (LT) (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The article Complete blood count you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Complete blood count for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tom (LT) -- Tom (LT) (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your contributions to the excellent and very readable article Full blood count. Well done! Tom (LT) (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ravee Shekhar (talk · contribs)
  • User:Ravee Shekhar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

www.IJIRMF.com is a Peer-Reviewed Open Access journal with Creative Common Licence. It is freely available in Public Domain. I have published my work here & own the Copyright Rights for Future Projects. so, Copyright Issue can't claim here. Please Look the raises issue again. Thanks

Ravee Shekhar (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Ravee Shankar, the license statement on iijrmf.com states it is under a CC BY-NC-ND license, which is not compatible with Wikipedia's licensing. See WP:Compatible license for a list of compatible licenses. Wikipedia allows reuse for derivative and commercial purposes, so we cannot accept non-commercial or non-derivative licenses. Even if you are the owner of the text, we cannot accept it unless you follow the process at WP:Donating copyrighted materials to release it under a proper license - I wouldn't recommend doing it for this though because copyright issues aside, the content reads like an essay and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (WP:NOTESSAY). Spicy (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Spicy,I recently changed content on User:SpicyMiIkBoy. Hope you don't mind. Regards, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 16:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Prahlad balaji, I don't particularly mind, but next time you might want to ask people before you do it, not afterwards. Spicy (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 16:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting I improve the citations on an article I started (1 Way To Make An Emoji) this morning. I've added a section to the article detailing the response to the podcast, which hopefully remedies concern about the show's notability. -DinoBenn (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

DinoBenn, tweets aren't reliable sources and they don't demonstrate that the podcast is notable. User-generated reviews can't be used either (WP:UGC). We'd need to see in-depth reviews from major news sites to show that it's notable. Unfortunately it may be too soon for the podcast to have an article. Spicy (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Understood; thank you for the clarification. -DinoBenn (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Spicy, the goodreads review of Hoffman's book is of course written by me also. I have the copyright on it. Should I include this in the notes? Zapata1000 (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Zapata1000 unfortunately, it's considered a copyright violation even though you wrote it, because it's hosted on an external site that doesn't release their content under an appropriate license. There's a process to donate copyrighted content that you wrote, but in this case I'd recommend rephrasing the content instead, because it's written in a more conversational tone than we generally use on Wikipedia. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I could delete some sentences that might be considered conversational, if one was in an ungenerous state of mind, but the text as a whole is not conversational. I've compared it to some other Wikipedia articles about books. Deleting the sentences would however still leave it mostly the same. Obviously written by the same author who wrote the review on Goodreads. I could also simply delete the Goodreads review, as there are many others already on Goodreads, and no article yet on Wikipedia. Zapata1000 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Zapata1000 Deleting the review on Goodreads might be an option, but I'm not sure if that will work since the content will have been cached by Google and likely mirrored on other websites. I'll ask an admin who is experienced with copyright about it. Spicy (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Zapata1000 The answer is sadly no; see here. That leaves either following the process at WP:Donating copyrighted materials (I would suggest emailing permissions-en as I'm not sure if placing a license statement on the review is sufficient, since you are not the copyright holder of the website itself); or rewriting the synopsis in a way that is substantially different from the Goodreads review. Sorry for the bureaucracy, but Wikipedia has to do this for legal reasons. Spicy (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Spicy,

I see you marked an article I wrote for early deletion because it was too promotional and I was ″very likely to have been paid″ to write it.

First, I was not, nor will be, paid to write it. I want to learn to write Wikipedia articles. I know the owner of this company, and am inspired by the fact that she is inventing products to reduce food waste and plastic waste. So I asked her if it would be ok if I wrote a Wikipedia article about it so others could see what she is doing to improve the world. I rewrote some of the text, and deleted a section, to make it appear less promotional. I also deleted the company's logo. I am waiting from her to get more information about other patents she has obtained. Is there anything else you can recommend that I do to make it seem less promotional?

As I am new to Wikipedia, I would appreciate any guidance you can give me.

Thank you. mcsquared (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Mary clare299

Mary clare299, if you know the owner personally that is considered a conflict of interest and you are required to follow the relevant guidelines, which are similar to the guidelines for paid editing. The article is thoroughly promotional and you would need to rewrite it from scratch for it to be compliant with Wikipedia's policies. Food Huggers creates tools that make it easy to adopt sustainable practices at home. is marketing speak. The product was tested by independent labs to confirm that they are made with high quality materials and meet all the required standards for food safety. is advertising. The "How to use" section is WP:NOTHOWTO. The "Environmental benefits" section is WP:ADVOCACY. Patents are primary sources and don't demonstrate that the product is notable. Those are just some of the problems with the article, not all of them. Please declare your conflict of interest and submit all further articles through WP:AfC so experienced users can address these issues prior to the article going live. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Spicy Thank you for the advise. I have already removed the ″marketing speak″ and will follow your other recommendations. Thanks for your help! mcsquared (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Mary clare299

• Sethmains (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bartle Brothers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good Morning. First of all, thank you for your comments on my draft article on the Bartle Brothers. I appreciate it. I had some of the same concerns as you that they would not be considered notable as per the Wikipedia guidelines. My interest in creating the article, though, was to provide some context for the 40 photographs of theirs that were recently uploaded to the Wikipedia Commons as part of a GLAM Wiki initiative by the Archives of Ontario.

Since I am not sure that there are scholarly resources out their that would improve the article. I have two quick questions for you. How would one link a Wikipedia article to related images in the Wikipedia Commons and where should the contextual information in the article be placed if we wanted to make it avaialable? Is that something that should go on our GLAM Wiki page to describe the project as opposed to Wikipedia proper? Thanks.

Sethmains (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sethmains, thanks for your comments and for your work with WP:GLAM. While they might not be notable enough for a WP article, I believe they would meet Wikidata's notability guidelines, since they have a category on Commons. A Wikidata entry would allow you to connect the contextual information to the photo collection. I'm not very experienced with Wikidata, so I can't offer much help with creating an entry, but there are some guides to editing Wikidata here.

To link to a Commons category in a relevant Wikipedia article, you can use {{commonscat}}. Hope this helps, Spicy (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I appreciate your guidance with this. I will explore Wikidata and see where it takes me. I think I have some archivist friends who used Wikidate more regularly so will reach out to them if the links you sent me aren't immediately helpful. Stay safe and stay well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethmains (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm John B123. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Stupava Synagogue, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

John B123 (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I unreviewed the page by mistake. --John B123 (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I figured that's what happened since you re-reviewed it right afterwards :) Thanks, Spicy (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Spicy! You deleted my post on Lolli (company). Is there any way i could get the code back. Full disclosure I work for them, but I added an COI to my page (once i saw i needed one). Additonally, i dont think the post was ad based - everything was verifiable, factual (data-based) and non-subjective. Thanks so much! WaltJsmith (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WaltJsmith I didn't delete your page, I only nominated it for deletion. You can ask Deb, the administrator who deleted the page. Spicy (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I am very much impressed by the articles you have created you are highly requested to please copy edit my Draft: Gyarvi Sharif. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majun e Baqi (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for detecting the copyright violations in Stephanie M. Reich. I did not speedily delete the article because I decided the professor was probably notable, her journal articles having been cited about 3500 times, so I left a single sentence stub. Other administrators might have deleted it, but I am not a deletionist at heart! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Understandable, thanks- I'll be more careful with the G12's :) Spicy (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Spicy,

I'm really grateful for your comment. I'll do everything you say to make this article better.

- I have added a reference from a magazine Keyboard (I have entered date, links and pages, it's verifiable); - I have removed one reference (which might be misinterpreted as advertizing); - I have added more references and modified them to also include name and surname (3rd party reviewers). - I have removed extra adjectives.

Please note this article is short and it only sticks out to facts, there is no praise or similar promotional stuff.

I'm an IT specialist and a guitarist, and would like to contribute on pages in these respective fields. When I wrote about Gig Performer, I researched similar topics, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar_Rig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MainStage_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Visualiser etc. etc.

I wanted to maintain this simple and informative style: quick overview, basic features, info box, and references from magazines, independent authors and their documentation. This topic is surely notable, because software is used for live gigging among many musicians, i.e. Chris Broderick from In Flames. For some magazines I don't have a live preview (they must be purchased, no preview). https://www.musictech.net/news/magazine/musictech-207-how-to-set-up-your-studio-for-online-collaboration/

If I still do something wrong, can you please tell me which sentences are problematic? I'll gladly edit it if I violated some rules.

Can you please help me out, this version is the best I can currently come up with.

I'll highly appreciate all the help I can get to make my first article live.

Thanks and kind regards, --Npudar (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems Timtrent has given you some good advice. Spicy (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll stop for tonight ... let me know if that system works for you. It's the way I've always worked with copyeditors, but some people find it very frustrating, so I'll wait for your feedback. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Followup at my talk page, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Spicy,

Timtrent and I have edited my article so it's way better and ready to be accepted. Can you please take a look now? Timtrent says it would be better you or someone else verify that article, since he made some edits and gave me lots of tips and instructions to improve my article and make it ready to be accepted.

Cheers, Npudar (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Npudar, as I've already reviewed the article once I think it would be more fair to let someone else take a look at it. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your feedback. Regards, Npudar (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to follow-up on what being a sysop means and do so without derailing your FAC discussion. SandyGeorgia was nice enough to hold me up as an example of what a sysop can do. She is correct when she says that a sysop does not have to go around blocking people. I have blocked 24 people which might sound like a lot but pales in comparison to the 368 that our newest sysop GeneralNotability, who does far more CVU than I, has done. Nearly all of those 28 are vandals who just showed up without me looking for them and because I had the toolset it was efficient for me to just carry out the block. But I did not become a sysop to block people and so that's not how I've spent much time.

I think there are two "hidden" advantages to being a sysop and a few more reasons why I think content creators should become sysops. Hidden advantage 1 is the ability to look at deleted content. This is helpful in several situations including NPP, which I notice you've started to do. Hidden advantage 2 is to not underestimate the additional respect that Sandy pointed out comes with being a sysop. Being a sysop by design confers no special advantages in a content discussion. That is true on paper. It is something I've said about myself (and meant) when discussing topics with others. However, I have to tell you that I am challenged less than I used to be when discussing policies and guidelines. RfA is a stamp that the community trusts you to understand those things and that trust ends up making a difference in all sorts of contexts. So those are the two hidden advantages.

Having people who really understand content creation as sysops is also very important. This is a something that has been an evolution for me as I used to not think it as much as I do now. All too often I have seen administrative actions, whether formally through the use of the sysop toolset or informally as mediators, made by people who don't really understand what it means to write high quality content and don't understand what it feels like as an editor to create that content. This lack of perspective has, at times, led to what I see as sub-optimal outcomes. Finally, having the sysop toolset just gives you more options. I have found, for instance, that I really enjoy closing AfD discussions. I am also able to help out in other areas when the mood strikes me, whether that's looking at CSDs or closing thorny RfCs. I like the options. And of course being a sysop doesn't stop you from writing content - during the summer I am planning on getting one article each week ready for GAN.

If you want to read more about my thoughts of RfA, using my own candidacy as the basis, I have written (at length) about it.To be honest the first time I can really recall seeing your name was when you applied for NPR but if Sandy's recommending you I'd be happy to give you a look and to then give you that feedback either here or via email. I have been part of the nomination process for two people so I even have a little experience of what that's like. Let me know if you're interested in exploring RfA and if so I'll do a dive and see what it looks like. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Barkeep49 ... @Ajpolino: to make sure they see this also, because we have a two-fer in these two new-ish medical editors. (I am getting to be so old that everyone is new ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 thank you for the post, you've given me a lot to read and think about :) I have to say, though - with all due respect, as I trust Sandy's judgment - that I was pretty surprised at her recommendation, as RfA isn't something that I'm considering at this time, let alone something that I would have thought others would be considering. I have been here for barely a year and frankly don't know what I'm doing most of the time. I am also not sure if it's something I will ever do, because spending a week in front of a panel where people list all of my personality faults and past mistakes is the kind of thing I have nightmares about. But I appreciate the insights you've shared with me and I will keep them in mind for the future. Spicy (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Spicy - I've just popped in to offer another perspective, should you want it. When an admin first suggested to me that I run for RfA, I hadn't been active much more than a year, and I felt pretty much exactly as you describe above. When I did eventually run a few months later, the whole thing went waaay smoother than I had expected. I haven't been through your contribs closely, but I trust BK's and Sandy's judgement - if they're suggesting that you think about it, I'm sure you'd have a very good chance indeed. RfA really isn't as scary as people make it out to be, unless there's something in your history where you managed to piss a lot of people off (I'm sure you'd know about it if that was the case). If you ever want to talk to me about it, feel free to ping me or e-mail me. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that I haven't done any serious look into Spicy as a candidate. I viewed the first step to be getting them to consider running based on Sandy's rec. If they're open to the idea then a dive into their chances seemed warranted. At the moment an understandable reluctance to do RfA even if the dive into edits was positive still seems the biggest barrier. But the seed has been planted and should Spicy warm up to it over time my talk page and email remains open for me taking a look at them as a candidate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Why was delete my article Anjoorans (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, which was why it was declined as a draft. Youtubers are rarely notable, particularly not if they have only 250k subscribers. Adding references that have nothing to do with the subject is not helpful. Spicy (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
• The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
• Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi spicy I see you changed the order of the name in the above article Atherton was his first name (not his last). Curtis is his last name. Can you please restore to how it was before? I pasted wiki data in the article at the bottom for you to verify - thanks Adin-Atherton (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about that, I saw the comma in the original page name and thought it was in "last name, first name" order. Fixed now. Spicy (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)