01/01/2019 - 08/06/2022

Hello, Dr vulpes. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, User:Dr vulpes/sandbox.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MB 00:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
53		National Biodiversity Network (talk)	Add sources
9		Huaceae (talk)	Add sources
59		Flora of China (talk)	Add sources
110		Platycladus (talk)	Add sources
295		Cupressaceae (talk)	Add sources
22		Juniperus conferta (talk)	Add sources
92		Bromus tectorum (talk)	Cleanup
48		Menispermaceae (talk)	Cleanup
551		Plant nutrition (talk)	Cleanup
14		Petrosaviaceae (talk)	Expand
46		Calochortus (talk)	Expand
34		Chloranthaceae (talk)	Expand
81		Cultigen (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
101		Eastern California (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
29		Chlorogalum (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
5		Allium munzii (talk)	Merge
301		College and university rankings in the United States (talk)	Merge
6		Acanthomintha ilicifolia (talk)	Merge
10		Cosumnes River Preserve (talk)	Wikify
24		Environment of California (talk)	Wikify
68		Health in the United States (talk)	Wikify
3		Schoenocrambe argillacea (talk)	Orphan
6		Adhnúall (talk)	Orphan
2		Bernd Wiesner (talk)	Orphan
93		Plants of the World Online (talk)	Stub
41		Zwiebelkuchen (talk)	Stub
7		Calochortus pulchellus (talk)	Stub
5		Calochortus palmeri (talk)	Stub
5		Calochortus obispoensis (talk)	Stub
19		Arbutus xalapensis (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) 06:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 11 "Citation needed" maintenance tags you added earlier today seemed in-toto like some kind of WP:DRIVEBY... so there are now 5 left. Shearonink (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Shearonink I'm still pretty new and honestly hearing this helps me grow and mature as an editor. I'll admit this article was kind of tricky for me hence why I added the tag asking for experts to weigh in. I think the mistake I made was viewing each statement as something that needed to have a source instead of taking a more holistic approach, I think I came to conclusion as the article had some problems with citations and flow in earlier drafts. Dr vulpes (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:West Ford § Maintenance tags and hatnote - removal or not - let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr vulpes, while reviewing your WP:PERM/PCR request, I noticed that over the past few weeks you have made a substantial amount of edits with AWB that have no effect on the rendered page, e.g. removing whitespace ([1][2]) or replacing redirects ([3][4]). I wanted to remind you that one of the rules of AWB states:

Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further similar edits.

In my view, it seems that many of your recent edits violate this rule. This is a bit disruptive because these edits will often clutter page histories and other editors' watchlists while bringing very little benefit to the encyclopedia. In the future, before submitting an edit with AWB, please ensure that the edit will actually have a substantive impact on the page. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out and giving me a heads up about my editing behavior. Yeah I see how this happened and kind of got away from me. I've been using AWB to go though batches of articles to kind of evaluate them to see if there were things I could do to improve them or if they would be articles I felt comfortable making edits to. At some point I figured if I was going to be hunting down parts of articles I was interested in and spending time getting a feel for things instead of making edits I might as well be productive. I see the error in this logic, how this sort of became a slippery slope for me as an editor, and I will correct it going forward. Again thank you for taking the time to point this out to me and nudging me back in the right direction. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Mz7 (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr vulpes - I pinged you at the page of the NPP tutorial. It's ready when you are. Atsme 💬 📧 17:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot I'll start work on it right away! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm NotReallySoroka. I wanted to let you know that your pending changes review to 2015 in the Philippines seems to violate our guidelines. Here is more info on our criteria for reviewing. Please try to follow our guidelines as closely as possible. If you have questions, just ask me on my talk page. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reverted your review because the IP had use blog or self-published sources to back their claim. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey NotReallySoroka thanks for pointing this out. I'm not really sure how I let this slip past me but I'll be more diligent in the future going forward. I reviewed the edit in question and I think I may have gotten the entry above it with the archive.org URL mixxed up. Thanks for taking the time to reach out and pointing out my mistake. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  :) NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your efforts adding conservation statuses to plant articles.

What is your intended purpose with Category:Flora without conservation status?

I assume you intend it to be an editor-focused (not reader-focused) maintenance category, since you have included it under Category:WikiProject Plants articles. If it a maintenance category, it should have {{Maintenance category|hidden=yes}}, so that it is only displayed to users who are logged in to Wikipedia and have chosen to see categories that are hidden by default.

Most plants (and organisms in general) have not been assigned a conservation status by any entity. If there is to be a maintenance category for articles that lack a conservation status, it should only be applied to articles where it could be expected that a conservation status has actually been assigned. I would expect that most North American plants have been assigned a TNC/NatureServe status. And I would expect that there aren't any North American species that have a status assigned by anybody else (ESA, IUCN) that don't also have a TNC status.

If "Category:Flora without conservation status" is going to be a maintenance category of Wikipedia articles to which an existing TNC status could/should be added, it should be renamed to something more precise such as "Category:Flora without expected TNC conservation status". Plantdrew (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Plantdrew thanks for reaching out and raising this issue to me. Yeah after taking a step back it should be a maintenance category. I'm using it to make the whole process of adding conservation statuses easier with AWB and a proposed bot. I'll go add the tag now, sorry for letting that slip through the cracks, I'll try to be more mindful going forward. I had thought about making the category something like "Category:Flora without expected TNC conservation status" but wasn't really sure if there would be a difference between different classification system so I just went with something generic. I'll rename it now and take care of the other subcategories as well. Again thanks for letting me know about my mistake and for the advice on making a maintenance category, I'm still getting a feel for things and goof up from time to time. If you have any other ideas or suggestions I'm all ears! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted the request for renaming the category. I'll let you know if anything comes up. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Plantdrew just wanted to let you know that the process for merging these categories into Category:Flora without expected TNC conservation status is finished. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 18:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, Dr vulpes! NPP needs you! Atsme 💬 📧 14:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Atsme! I really enjoyed this training, it forced me to really think deeply about why the rules are in place and how they affect the articles and our community. Your feedback was excellent and helped me get a better understanding of things when I got confused. 10/10 would do this again. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 18:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr vulpes. 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) 14:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm CollectiveSolidarity. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Lethal Weapons, and have marked it as unreviewed. 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.)

CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @CollectiveSolidarity thanks for reaching out and letting me know. I’m new to new page patrol so getting feedback like this is important and I appreciate it. Looking back I think I marked that as ok was because there were other episodes that were marked as ok and I thought it met the guidelines underWP:NTVEP, which after rereading are not really guidelines. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I actually joined the patrol only two days ago, and I’m just learning the ropes. But yeah, that page wasn’t that notable, so that’s why I tagged it. But anyway, thanks for your response. Nice to meet you on the patrol. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Of all the editors I’ve come across recently, you’re probably the most candid one that I’ve seen in a while. It’s difficult to admit your own mistakes, but I’m glad that you’re transparent of your own shortcomings. Cheers to you! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[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 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr vulpes. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Shatpancashika, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context and content in the article. Thank you. BangJan1999 23:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr vulpes. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of 2022 World Cadets Wrestling Championships, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Thank you. BangJan1999 23:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr vulpes. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Kicker (EP), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article makes creditable claim of significance and has enough content to be a stub. Thank you. BangJan1999 23:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr vulpes. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Konstantin Kalinov, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan1999 23:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr vulpes. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Larrye Weaver, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan1999 23:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr vulpes. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Grant Atkins, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan1999 23:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were adding "needs additional citations for verification" in Mixed Poisson distribution. Which part of the article needs additional references?

• Section Definition can be found in [1]
• For Expected value is nothing to proof. Skewness, CF and MGF can be verified in one step.
• Section Examples has a complete proof for the statements
• Section Table can be found in [2]
  Bigbossfarin (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Bigbossfarin sorry that was on me I mistaged the article. What I went over and fixed it. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edit to Oman at the 2022 World Aquatics Championships, but please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag. Thanks. PamD 12:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops my bad thank you for pointing this out to me. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 12:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr vulpes, good day. not sure you have received my ping, I have set up the program for you here. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 23:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me, things got a little busy on my end but I'll start work on it tonight. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding journal references in the new article on Partition algebra. However, in the process, you erased the preprint numbers. Is it a feature of an automated tool you are using?

I have now restored the preprint numbers. They are very important in mathematics and theoretical physics. I have accessed all the sources for Partition algebra from arXiv. I do not know whether I can access the journal versions, and whether they differ from the arXiv versions. And when there is a difference, it can be the arXiv version that is better and more up to date than the journal version.

I understand that the role of preprints can be different in other sciences. However, it would be good to link to preprints when they exist, if only for the sakes of open access and stable archiving. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Can u create user page for me pls Welcome Hi I'm from India staying in kuwait I'm wikipedian I'm born 1990 Pls decorated also 94.128.81.246 (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Curbon7. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Shane Hazel, and have marked it as unreviewed. 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.)

Curbon7 (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An aside, but remember to use Twinkle tags by the way. This article is both an orphan and uncategorized, so it should've been tagged. Curbon7 (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opss thanks for the heads up! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr. v.

Like you, I think plants and nature are kinda neat. Dr. G.'s book is based on a plant-based diet.* He's got the references to support his findings.

I'm presently tied up w/ another project. To get to the thorough revision that the book deserves would take a while. So, go ahead and delete. I'll likely complete the revision less than 2 mo. I'm well along there now.

* If you're already on such a diet, that's great (provided that you're on Vitamin B12 pills, to replace Vitamin B12 found only in meat & fish. Sustained lack of Vitamin B12 in a diet might take awhile to show up, e.g, in brittle bones followed by death.

Cheers, Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you're interested in the subject, a good place to get a used copy of the 2015 book is ThriftBooks.com. A nice complement to that is Dr. Dean Ornish's book The Spectrum (2007). Both are page-turners & NY Times best sellers. Anyone on the standard American diet (SAD, as Dr. G. & others have labelled it) would likely way benefit from the books. Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 172#Proposal to ban draftifying articles more than 90 days old without consensus, you shouldn't draftify old articles, even if they end up in the new pages feed due to (in this case) a bit of page-move vandalism. In particular, Draft:Birayma Dyeme-Kumba (2018), Draft:Gainsari Assembly constituency (2018), Draft:Nord 1500 Noréclair (2011), Draft:Riverview Rural High School (2008), Draft:Hieronymus Medices (2008), and Draft:Agustín Argüelles (2007) should not have been draftified and I request that you move them back to mainspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery all of the pages in the list you have provided were listed as unpatrolled before being moved to draft. If you review the history of the articles you'll note that they had been recently edited after a long period of inactivity and therefore were sent back to NPP. After reviewing the articles it was determined that sending the articles to draft as per WP:NPPDRAFT. These articles are not candidates for speedy deletion, make claims of notability, and have had years of no active improvement to the articles. It would appear that it is in the best interest of the articles that they be incubated in draft as per WP:ATD-I. There is at least some new active development of these articles for the first time in years so this is not an attempt at a backdoor deletion, which was a concern found policy pertaining to drafting articles over 90 days old. If you want me to go ahead and return these articles to mainspace the only option left for them is deletion.

I've included a list of some of the glaring reasons these articles were sent to draft and could not be marked as patrolled. Let me know what you want me to do and I'll take care of it later today. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Birayma Dyeme-Kumba
  • One reference
  • Entire article is one sentence
• Draft:Gainsari Assembly constituency
  • Three references, two sources, one of them primary
  • Second table needs to be revamped
• Draft:Nord 1500 Noréclair
  • One reference
  • No inline citations
• Draft:Riverview Rural High School
  • No references
  • Has not addressed verifiability since June 2011
• Draft:Hieronymus Medices
  • One reference
  • No inline citations
• Draft:Agustín Argüelles
  • One reference
  • No inline citations

    Did you even read the discussion I linked to? It came to a consensus that old articles, which all of these are, should not be draftified. Being recently edited after a long time does not normally send articles to NPP. What actually happened is that a vandal moved the pages outside mainspace, and then the vandal was reverted. This does not negate the articles old status, nor does the since-checkuser-blocked vandal display any indication of a desire to improve the article, so There is at least some new active development of these articles for the first time in years so this is not an attempt at a backdoor deletion is nonsense, and in any case if it were true it still wouldn't justify draftifying since one of the requirements for a draftification is there is no evidence of active improvement.

    I want you to move the pages back to mainspace and pursue whatever deletion processes you feel are necessary, as I'm entitled to do. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've moved these all back to mainspace (and left them unreviewed for another new page reviewer) given the lack of response to my above comment. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey @Pppery I want to reach out and apologize for not getting to those drafts. Last month I was dealing with COVID and spent a lot of time in bed or just exhausted. Things slipped through the cracks including almost all of the work I was doing here. Although pretty excusable my actions (or lack therefore of) were not professional and I'm sorry if there were any hurt feelings and for putting the burden of work on you. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr vulpes! Please take a look at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/July 2022/Re-reviews#Bilorv: I've re-reviewed five of your NPP article patrols and failed two of them, with reasoning that is hopefully fully explanatory. If you'd like to discuss them further, it may be best to have the discussion here. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv Thank you for letting me know about this. I am very sorry that I did not get back to you quickly. I contracted COVID and have been out of commission for most of the month. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences on the COVID. Hope you're feeling better now! — Bilorv (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		This award is given to Dr vulpes for accumulating the most points 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) 07:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		This award is given to Dr vulpes for 879 reviews and 92 re-reviews in the July NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions.Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Awarded to Dr vulpes for re-reviewing 92 articles, a very impressive feat. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 15:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I dont' understand why you renamed my article into draft, and not just reverted this edit.

Best, Kvardek du (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Kvardek du, I didn't send the article to draft because of the edit in question. I sent the article to draft because as the article stands it needs substantial work if it is going to stay on Wikipedia. A large section is not in english including the references. There are no inline citations. The article is not written like an encyclopedia article, it reads like promotional ad. I was unable to figure out if this person is notable if they are not then the article needs to be deleted but if they are then it needs to be noted and follow the proper guidelines WP:LIVE amd WP:NBIO.

If you need help or direction I'm more than willing to point you to propper resources. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really looking at this version? Only the inline citations names are in French, the text is entirely using statements from them. I think it's pretty factual - I translated it from my own French version. It has two centered sources separated by 2 years - the article is definitely notable in French, and generally in this case it is notable in English. Kvardek du (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvardek du I am looking at this version, as it is the most current and recent version. That version is the one that I based my decision on during the new page patrol review process. I did not go back though the history. There are still problems with your version and I would still have either sent the article to draft or nominated it for deletion as the artist does not meet the notability guidelines as per WP:ARTIST. I don't think their exhibitions are particularly noteworthy and they are not represented within a permanent collection. I will admit that I don't know a lot about Edi in France so when I was reviewing this article I compared them to some of the other French artists I knew like Seb Janiak or Judith Benhamou-Huet. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I understand better how you did proceed. I recognize it's uncommon to have such edits just after the creation of the page (even if I was very surprised and a bit shocked, at least I'm an experienced Wikipedian so I wasn't totally lost). The artist is represented in the collections of the renowned Musée de la Chasse et de la Nature and even the worldwide class Centre Pompidou, had a monographic exhibition at the Lyon museum. He definitely meets the guidelines. Kvardek du (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information about the artist. For sure, just fix the issues on the draft form of the article and I'll kick it back to mainspace. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ConservationStatusAndRangeMapBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 16:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.[reply]

Dear Dr Vulpes, you revoked my edit on the article stating that "user pushing personal view point". It's not the case. The person mentioned has been dead for the past year and a half. The current mayor is the vice president Mohammad Hajar. Moritz Asal (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Moritz Asal, your edit didn't have a reference for the election so it was removed. If the subject of an article is about a living person we have higher set of standards that are used, see WP:LIVE. You're more than welcome to put the edit back just make sure it's verifiable and referenced. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

A tag has been placed on Category:Hate crimes in America indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Liz, yeah that was my mistake I was adding categories to an article, made this one, realized it was a mistake, and just forgot to nominate it for deletion. I'm really sorry for taking up your time with this and I'll be better about cleaning up after myself next time. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited FT8, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CW. 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) 09:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed with this edit and many others that you capitalized the word "state". At Iowa and many other articles it is spelled "the state of Iowa". Was there a reason for capitalizing the word? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Magnolia677, that's my mistake thanks for pointing it out to me. I'll go back over and fix the errors later today. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Magnolia677, ok I fixed all the grammar errors. If you catch any more please let me know and thank you so much for letting me know. I'm glad you told me now when I only had a few states finished, if I had to do the entire USA I would have gone nuts! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100 percent sure your edit was incorrect; it just looked wonky. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your proposal to delete this article. The concerns leading are valid, though I believe that there should be a discussion thread to either delete or improve the article. The article is about an important administrative unit in Pakistan and has many child articles. Would love if you consider this. Regards. Pakieditor (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Pakieditor, anyone can delete the PROD but I have a solution that I think will handle this. How about we send the article to draft so it can be improved. My concern is that someone else might push for it to be deleted and if someone is going to work on it I don't want that to happen. If you think this is a good idea then let me know and I will go ahead and send it to draft. If there is anything I can do to help improve this article please let me know. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 18:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the speedy reply. I will definitely think about this. Pakieditor (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Dr vulpes, thank you again for your comments on my recent ORCP. One thing of note was AfD, so when you get the chance would you mind taking at a look my more recent AfD responses to see if they are less like borderline drive-bys? I am attempting to choose ones to respond that have had less responses by others too. In practice I'm not thinking of going for RfA for a few months whilst I work on content creation too, but wanted to make sure I'm on the right track with AfD at least. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Kj cheetham, yeah they look good. You're adding a lot of content and bringing up important issues. Lookin good! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Vital Barnstar
		For your one-shot edit at Inorganic chemistry. You're truly a referencing madlad. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr vulpes: I notice that you recently added a couple of articles about lichen species. A small group of us have just started a lichen task force. If you're interested, please consider joining us! We could use all the help we can get. ;) MeegsC (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @MeegsC thanks for reaching out I'll check it out. I got suckered into lichens recently and have enjoyed gathering information about them in the databases. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to notify me about your CSD nomination of a page I recently created, Sodaholic. Please remember you are required to notify the authors of all pages that you mark for speedy deletion. ––FormalDude talk 00:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, didn't notice the checkbox wasn't checked for notifying the author of the article. Thanks for pointing that out! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr vulpes - I'm sure in the future you will remember to notify the author. There's a lot to remember, I know, but keep up the good work. Also see Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting #6. It makes perfect sense to me that if we don't cross-namespace redirect, we should not cross-wiki redirect to Wiktionary per WP:SSRT. Take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, noting that it was previously deleted. and that WP does not cross-wiki redirects to Wiktionary, especially a redirect created specifically for a neologism. Atsme 💬 📧 02:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC) ^{updated strike & underline 10:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

@Atsme: See Wikipedia:Cross-wiki redirects. ––FormalDude talk 04:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, FormalDude, my apologies and thank you for making us aware. I have never had the need to use such a redirect, and surprisingly, the process dates back to 2004. I am certainly receptive to your reason for creating that redirect as applicable to WP:SSRT which states: Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia. I happen to agree with the latter, and taking into consideration that it was previously deleted, I'm not seeing "commonly wikified" or "repeated recreation". But in an effort to give it every chance I can possibly think of for keeping it, I Googled sodaholic to see how widespread its use, and the search returned "about 6.610 results" which is not even close to being as widespread as words like sodajerker which brought back "about 28.700 results", or dude which brought back "about 975.000.000 results." Have you experienced an issue that caused you to create that redirect? Atsme 💬 📧 10:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your effort in reviewing this matter, but I'm not particularly invested in this. It is, after all, just a redirect. I have not experienced any issues that caused me to create it, and if someone nominates it for RfD, that is fine by me. ––FormalDude talk 03:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dr vulpes, the only reason I am encouraging you to pursue an RfD is that we should at least make an effort to prevent overuse as such redirects have potential to become a regular practice in lieu of the intended purpose. Redirects are viewed as WP:CHEAP, and while there is merit in the proper use of redirects, misuse (inadvertent or otherwise) adds unnecessary work to our already overworked volunteers. I'm of the mind that you have had enough experience as a NPP reviewer to have noticed the ambiguities in our PAGs, some of the gaming that goes on, the use-mention distinction issues, misinterpretations and misapplication of WP:N at AfD, and so forth. If only we could be so lucky as to have more editors like FormalDude, who was a pleasure to work with in this situation. I think it probably boils down to the right combo of experience and collegiality. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 12:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr vulpes, hope you are doing well, I need help regarding, usage of Citation bot! How can i use that? ——— Poliiii (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's really easy here are the instructions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_expander Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 11:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ——— Poliiii (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr vulpes. I hope all is well on your end. I stopped by to mention that after reviewing this article's history, and changes that were made that resulted in the removal of the redirect, I saw no improvement in the sources that satisfy N to warrant it being a standalone article. Atsme 💬 📧 11:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Atsme, I 100% completely agree with your edit and it is what I wanted to do. I ran into this issue with two articles I reviewed earlier this month (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains (Heroes) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Eclipse (Heroes)) and had to submit them to AfD to try and redirect/delete them. That was three weeks ago it appears that there is a prevailing attitude that any TV episode that has two reviews of it warrants an independent article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did read this article, right? It's one of my favs. Oh, and did you notice the image I created for you on my UTP with the Duke & Duchess? Atsme 💬 📧 22:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde 12:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 6,410 views (534.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that audience scores are not allowed WP:UGC. Do not add them to film articles. -- 109.77.196.11 (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 05:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I hope this message meets you in good health. Do review this page Makayla (musician). Cheers Amaekuma (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've changed the name, as suggested by you. Do review the page Dr vulpes. Thanks Amaekuma (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i want you to help me oost this here in Wikipedia. 👇👇

Emmanuel okeke is a young Nigeria music singer (born 22 march 2003),[1] popularly known as Blinks sus, the young artist calls his type of music (Afro melody). He rose to stardom with the release of his Ep title (The AVATAR) his journey so far has been a wonderful moves. He claims his journey is to take afro music to the next world #galaxy Emmanuelokeke1276 (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have consistently demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when reviewing pages, resulting in users being offended or discouraged (especially new users). You have also taken it upon yourself to police topics your are obviously extremely ignorant about. I suggest you mend your ways 41.190.12.120 (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my talk page also got one of these. Nick Levine (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm doing something right if IP editors are spending time to shame me and my "ignorance". Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think my edits are malicious you are more than welcome to go though the dispute resolution process. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, many thanks for reviewing my passport redirects! Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to report user:Mai-Sachme who changes names as he wants at towns which stay in Italy such as Ortisei and Bressanone: I moved titles of articles in correct manner but he is an edit warrior. Under Italian law, official name is Bressanone-Brixen or Brixen-Bressanone but that person ever removes Italian name and same situation persists on Ortisei. Ciao Staiolone (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Staiolone I would recommended you talk to someone at the Teahouse as they are better equipped to direct new users on these issues. Sorry I'm not an admin or have experience with dispute resolution but if you run into roadblocks please just come back and I'll try and direct you the best I'm able. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped you could answer a question. What should a reviewer do when they send an article to draft but then the article's creator ignores the draft and recreates the article in main space? It has happened a few times so far. In the latest instance I have sent the recreated article to AfD. But is that the right course? Bruxton (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Dr. Vulpes has not been around so I wonder if I can get an answer from Atsme or @MB:. Bruxton (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the question at NPP discussion now. Bruxton (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr vulpes,

In cases like this, you should not have closed this AFD discussion. You couldn't withdraw your nomination because there was support for an article deletion. But according to Wikipedia:CLOSEAFD, only uninvolved editors or admins can close an AFD discussion and as the nominator, you are definitely involved. Please review the closure policy and do not do this in the future. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops my mistake on that one, I incorrectly assumed that the edits to the article addressed Mccapra's concerns. Won't happen again. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the eligibility criteria to add a company's name on wiki.

Thanks. --Shreyans Begwani (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Shreyans Begwani, I would ask this over at the Tea House which is where new users ask questions like this. If you're looking for just the guidelines for notability of a company they can be found here. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I just wanted to thank you for your last statement on my ANI thread, informing me that my tone is bordering on bullying. I have rectified this by leaving the project. As you rightly indicated, I am high maintenance and would hate for me having problems with someone else's behaviour, to affect my own, or to get in the way of yours or anyone else's life. I trust this is acceptable to you. Please don't reply, it's not necessary. Dane|Geld 08:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I fully understand how you fell, my first article was sent to AfD and it stung. I think the ANI just hit a lot of nerves for people. One of the things I really love about wikipedia is when mistakes are made just apologizing and moving on (like we are right now) makes everything ok. There are people in that ANI thread who I have STRONGLY disagreed within the past but later we saw eye to eye on other issues (including this one). You are a good editor and make wikipedia a better place. Your work is important. The community would be worse off without you in it. There are a lot of learning opportunities here and I hope you make the best use of them. I know in the future we will clash and we will agree but I know a the end of the day you are a human being and I will do my best to respect and honor your contributions. Things are kinda tense right now but I really hope you stick around, make this place better, and that we can go forward improve this space for everyone. Again, thank you for your comment here, it means a lot to me. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I mess up, like, a lot. I mess up so much I made a flippen list of all my screw ups. I really need to update that by the way. :-) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I looked at that list of things that you messed up. That was a few days ago. This isn't my first time visiting your user talk page. Curious sorts, are curious. My heart leapt up a bit at your humor and humility. Do you have ANY idea how rare that is, i.e. to openly manifest humor and humility, especially on Wikipedia? No, on second thought, it is rare EVERYWHERE! Proffering a mea culpa like that should satiate even the most antagonized and irritable of souls. (I'm not suggesting that Dane Geld guy is either.) Truly, if the world had more Dr. Vulpes around, well, you get the idea. Are you certain you're not one of those 23 holy men that some of my religion/ethnicity believe are necessary for the world to exist? Um I think, I think they are named... (I don't even have the excuse of long COVID for my brain fog, although my gynecologist says that the onset of menopause is comparable) um... lamed vavniks! Some obnoxious person added a lot of "citation needed" and "dubious" tags to an article on Jewish mysticism. (I roll my eyes upward.) I am a trad Jewish female, so I leave mysticism for the men folk. Women are not supposed to go near it. Jewish men aren't supposed to either, not unless they are spiritually girded for it. (Madonna has culturally appropriated Kabbalah, I suspect.) Anyway, I just concentrate on capital risk management. Imagine a big toothy smiley face... Wikipedia is emoji-impoverished!--FeralOink (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vulpes, I spent hours cleaning and improving the references in your AfC jamovi article. I approved it for main space last night. (I am a statistician IRL although I use SAS and SPSS not R). This is the name of the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamovi_(software) jamovi (software). Why are you upset with me?! I saw the message you left in the page protection area, objecting to what I had done. I'm confused. Look up, and you can see that I even left a note for you, saying that you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. FeralOink (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @FeralOink I'm sorry, I wasn't upset with you, the way I came off was not cool and is 100% my bad. I got real frustrated with trying to get everything working and screwed up. Right now I'm also dealing with some long covid nonsense (brain fog, migraines) so sometimes when my energy gets depleted I get grumpy/confused. This is in no way an excuse for my behavior or actions, just an explanation of what's going on over on my end and an apology to you for how my actions hurt you. The only olive branch I have is this site of SAS jokes. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vulpes, you are such a sweet heart!!! Why thank you for that friendly offering of SAS jokes! I am really enjoying it. I understand that you got frustrated about the jamovi article. I was feeling a little high strung the other day because I got fired from my job doing risk management at the bank. So you shouldn't feel too badly. I probably should apologize a bit too. I'm really sorry to hear that you're suffering with long covid horror. I hope you feel better in something sooner than a long time. That's a terrible pun, but the best I can do at the moment.--FeralOink (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah crud, my overzealous use of << and >> has caused your entire user page from the lamed vavniks onward to be italicized. I'm sorry about that. Feel free to just delete my comments. I'll try to stop by later and fix the wikisyntax that inadvertenty caused the mess--FeralOink (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed!--FeralOink (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[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 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]