Shock singularity, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Mass inflation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi! I noticed you're correctly adding more specific categories to many articles. When you do this, please remember to also remove/replace the parent (less specific) categories.
Per WP:CATSPECIFIC, a page shouldn't normally be in both a category and its parent category. There are some exceptions to this rule, for example in our case it would be Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, but in the majority of cases only the most specific category is needed. Digressivo (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because I'm still a pretty new editor, I'm trying too hard to convince that a topic is notable. Would be great to have some advice on how to bring the temperature down on the present draft, toward acceptabilty. Thanks much if you have the time. Helith049 (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The "Digital transformation" section just sounded a bit promotional to me, which was why I declined it. A lot of the statements in the section felt like they were complimenting the company (for having good servers, being simple to use, etc). Consider:
Rewriting the section in a more neutral-sounding tone
Quoting sources. Ex: "Bob Jones of 123 Magazine called the platform's design 'simple and understandable for even inexperienced users'"
Adding critiques or criticisms of the company's software
Hi! I would just recommend trying to find more sources that discuss Carepatron in depth. A couple of the sources you used were blog posts or not super in-depth. These sources aren't necessarily bad, but they don't prove an article's notability.
If you added more reviews that aren't blog posts (check the url -- it will usually say /blog/) or any scientific studies (particularly not authored by Carepatron's staff) that would be awesome! :)
Hello.
I am sorry. Can you open the links under the article? Can you use Google translator if you don't know the language? Can you check other Wiki articles about the person and translate them if you don't want to buy and read the biography? Can you see that he is mention in English version of Wiki as writer with other links? Books, TV series, novels, songs, article about him - what is the problem with sources? "Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." "I don't have any respect to no-english culture." AlexVasilevInfo (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Content has been added but still no sources for the first two paragraphs and last two sentences of the biography section
- first two links: biography and pdf from Russian encyclopedia
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page I–V–vi–IV progression, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hey I just wanted to let you know that our sources make mention that the partner in the Charlie Kirk case was transitioning from male to female, and per MOS:GENDERID, that means we refer to them using female terminology. The only sources I've seen calling her a boyfriend are right wing personalities going out of their way to do so Snokalok (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'm not trying to be transphobic or anything, I just could have sworn when I looked it up I saw CNN or smth call them a boyfriend. but maybe I was just imagining it or they got it wrong or smth. Shocksingularity (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Shocksingularity. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Survivor 49, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: @RangersRus, CNMall41, Prince of Erebor, and Shocksingularity: Shocksingularity, it would appear that you have marked the draft as "under review". Unless I am missing some other step, this is just where it is at 21 Sep 2025, and is yer to be accepted. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC) . Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was the AFC reviewer. I judged it as suitable for mainspace but I can’t accept the draft until the preexisting article in mainspace (the redirect) is gone. That’s why it doesn’t show as accepted on the draft page. Shocksingularity (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, TERRIERS, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added every political assassination since 2009. I will add more soon, this is just my stopping point for today. Let me know if you'd actually want to accept this article before I put in every year. Thanks for your time and consideration. HoodedBeast09 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would! I wasn't trying to be harsh or anything in my AFC review btw, it's just that articles about political topics need a bit more time and work in draftspace before they're ready for mainspace than a lot of other types of articles :) Shocksingularity (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I didn't think it was harsh at all! I was just curious whether a list like this would eventually be suitable for Wikipedia before I put in the work. Thanks so much for all your patience! HoodedBeast09 (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, now that I reread my message, I see that I kinda see that it came across as a little rude. I honestly didn't mean it like that. It's hard to communicate over text sometimes. Lol HoodedBeast09 (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluating the importance of articles in the WikiProject Music theory
@Shocksingularity, you recently changed the importance level of several articles about music theory, without justifying these changes. Evaluating the importance of an article is rather subjective (see Importance rating), but checking how often it has been viewed may give an indication. The WP article Schenkerian analysis, for instance, which you rated "low importance" in the project Music theory, has been read, in the last twenty days, about 1840 times (88 a day) in English and 2400 times (114 a day) in all languages (see this analysis), while Degree (music) which you rated "high importance" was viewed less than twice as often.
Sorry for not discussing! It feels like WP:Music theory is dead sometimes. I came upon the ratings after noticing that my new article, Plagal cadence, had been rated as a low-importance music theory article, which felt weird to me because it's definitely pretty important to the topic overall. When I went to look at what was rated where, I noticed many weird ratings, such as rhythm and timbre being rated as low-importance. There were also niche topics, such as individual notes in a Southeast Asian tuning system, being rated as top-importance. Because of this, I decided to change some things around, although I realize that I should have discussed it first. Sorry!
Though I will note that a higher number of page views does not necessarily mean that the topic is more important. I rated Schenkerian analysis as low-importance because it was a more niche topic, while I rated Degree (music) as high-importance because the idea of scale degrees is essential to music theory. Shocksingularity (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Music theory indeed seems rather inactive, but it might be reactivated – it may react to our discussion, that I mentioned there.
The problem that I see with Schenkerian topics is that, as you may know, Schenkerian theory has been attacked in the US as "racist," and I thought that considering them of low importance might be linked to this attack.
About your new article, Plagal cadence, it contains a somewhat ambiguous statement, "As early as the early 16th century, German music theorists described the plagal cadence as a clausula formalis (formal close)," which seems to me rather unlikely as the term "plagal cadence" did not yet exist. Clausulae are contrapuntal formations, usually combining the clausula cantizans (^8––^7–^8) and the clausula tenorizans (^3–^2–^1), more often resulting, once the clausula bassizans was added, into perfect cadances. In addition, according to the Handwörterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie, only one early 16th-century German music theorist mentioned the clausula formalis. Search "Clausula formalis" on Scholar Google.
I wasn't saying it was racist, I just had never heard of it. It didn't seem as well-known as the other topics in mid-importance. Sorry if I made an inaccurate assessment.
Also, page importance does indeed not depend on its quality, so I don't know why you're implying that my page was "low quality" because it had one ambiguous semi-accurate statement. Also, the German music theorist(s) did not use the term "plagal cadence", but they did call that particular chord progression a "clausula formalis". Shocksingularity (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth considering that the importance of various aspects of music theory can change over time. Schenkerian analysis would have absolutely been a "high" importance topic... thirty to forty years ago.
But times, they change, and the newer generation of music theorists are less interested in Schenkerianism for a variety of reasons. It's less applicable to things like scholarship on the music of the last fifty to a hundred years, including non-tonal and popular musics.
And Schencker WAS, in fact, a vicious racist, and there's been quite a bit of discussion over whether or not that needs to be considered in evaluating his analytical approaches. PianoDan (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PianoDan wrote that "Schenkerian analysis would have absolutely been a "high" importance topic... thirty to forty years ago." Yet, the list of further readings on the Schenkerian analysis page includes many works that date from less than forty years ago – 18, on a total of 53, about 34%. He added that "Schenker was, in fact, a vicious racist" but I fail to see how this might result in Schenkerian analysis itself being racist (as some claimed).
It's ok. I think it's fine in mid importance, but I do think that we need to come up with some sort of importance classification system to stop more disputes from coming up and to make classifying articles easier (since there are quite a few unclassified articles at the moment). The system WP Astronomy does is a good one, though obviously topic-specific Shocksingularity (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a conference exists, or that research exists, says absolutely nothing about the importance of a topic relative to the rest of the field. PianoDan (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New page reviewer granted
Hi Shocksingularity, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
Hello Shocksingularity, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of A. Tamizharasu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This appears to refer to a different person as th stated facts are not the same. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Shocksingularity, you recently reviewed and edited a page I've created for the Palestinian village of Kurza, Hebron, and redirected it to Khursa. Those are two different, independent, unrelated villages. I would appriciate your help in deleting the redirect רמרום (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry! I really thought it was a spelling variation because a couple of the sections were very similar and the location was close on the map. My bad! Shocksingularity (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
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.
Hi there, and welcome to NPP! I wanted to reach out because you recently nominated Peythozhiyathe for G12 speedy deletion, then marked it as patrolled. This is a common mistake for new reviewers! When you tag a page for speedy deletion, you should not also mark it as patrolled. If an administrator removes the speedy tag (deciding the page doesn’t qualify), the article will still need review. As such, marking it as patrolled could let problems slip through. This differs from sending an article to AfD. You should mark an article as patrolled in this case because the article will be kept or deleted via community consensus. As such, it does not need to remain in the queue for NPR. I hope this makes sense! Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Also, feel free to join the NPP Discord where you can ask questions and get feedback in (closer to) real time. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for editing and assessing the page for Arceuthobium blumeri that I recently created. I am a very new editor trying to flesh out Wikipedia's coverage of dwarf mistletoes. As I am trying to understand the standards for Wikipedia articles, can you provide more detail about the start-class assessment for this article so that I can improve it? I believe article in its current state includes reference to all or nearly all published information about the taxon. Is major cleanup needed with the organization or prose? I appreciate the feedback! HolyEgg (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nbd! Most articles start out as start class, so it's not a bad assessment to get at all. There were a few problems with prose, but I mostly edited them out. It is a bit technical, but I don't think that's necessarily a huge problem for this article atp. I feel that it is very close to C-class, my one minor nitpick would be possibly adding an image of the plant to the infobox, if you have can find one? Commons is a great place to look. You could also consider adding an image depicting its range. If you can't find anything that's totally fine also. Feel free to lmk if you'd like me to reassess it! :) Shocksingularity (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response! I would appreciate a reassessment given that minor issues with prose and a lack of illustrations are not features that separate start- from C-class on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tool/Assessment page from what I can see. As mentioned in the edit history, there don't seem to be any CC-licensed images of this taxon online, and there are no iNaturalist observations of it to draw from, either. HolyEgg (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, clicking on the "What links here" link (in the tools listed at the left in desktop view) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Please only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! Dan Leonard (talk • contribs)21:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]