User talk:Pichemist/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Thanks for approving

I saw your note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ATM622#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Jack_Mizzi_has_been_accepted Showing that you accepted the article.

Please note that the article has been unpublished a while ago and moved to draft.

Can you please help? ATM622 (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, in this case I'm afraid I cannot do much except request forgiveness from @User:Onel5969 and @User:MaxnaCarta as it was my lack of foresight and lack of prior experience reviewing draft articles that lead to this. I promise that I will do my best to learn from this experience and review articles better. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 08:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Pichemist - I reviewed several of the articles you approved from AfC, and this was the only one I had an issue with. And my issue is with the fact that it is UPE created. Those have to be virtually perfect, imho, to warrent moving to mainspace. While the editor who created has followed protocol and declared his COI on his talkpage, it's still missing citations for several assertions within the article. But you have my apologies. I should have left a message here on your talk page with this explanation as a matter of courtesy. I can only plead that it's the holidays. But keep up the good work. I'll address the editor on their talk page so as not to clutter your talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere but I want to highlight that I am new to this. I was not aware that there are various editors with various roles, so both please accept my apologies for the trouble caused. I was excited that the article was accepted after having spent at least 200 hours on it. Well, it will never be perfect but I onboarded the suggestions of Onel5969, I look forward to having your feedback. From my side I must say that I am taking notes of the principles I need to follow as I will work on further articles. I thought that I had overdid it with citations but I understand that since this is a new article there should be no stone unturned. ATM622 (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Please note that I embellished the citations as requested at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jack_Mizzi. I commented out (but did not remove) the <citations needed> for traceability purposes. ATM622 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fort Saint Elmo

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fort Saint Elmo 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, regarding this article, WP:GAN/I#N1 states that "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article must consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination.", and so I will not be able to pass the article this time, as the majority editor User:Xwejnusgozo was not consulted by you, and you have not amended the article in any way yourself.

Feel free to contact me at any time if you are interested in me helping you to nominate any articles in the future, I can make sure you get through the process and achieve some success. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, it was my mistake as I was not aware of that specific policy. Thank you once again and may I offer you my sincere apologies. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 08:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Moon_Sua

With the addition of the information that they charted at 17 with a single, I would have thought that would have tipped the scales into notability. WP:NMUSICIAN: 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. I wish this said something about how how it had to place. UtherSRG (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

From what I see, even though the article might be notable, the number of citations are not enough for the vastness of the article. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 20:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the response. UtherSRG (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Fungi in Art

From what I can see, you contributed absolutely nothing to this article, except to move it from draft to article space. And yet, you now take it to GAN?! Seriously?! What an insult to CorradoNai who has put weeks and months of work into it! I can't believe you've done this. The GAN instruction page clearly says "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article must consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." MeegsC (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry as I did not read that part. If anything I want to apologize to User:CorradoNai. I just wanted him to be recognized for his work if anything because I thought the article was that good. I would like to apologize once again _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 08:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Pichemist, I am new here and I am grateful to both you and to MeegsC for your help. What I would be really excited to is to see many people contribute to this page. Any idea, how to achieve this? All the best CorradoNai (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It is definitely one that will be worthy of GA. But it will need some work before it's ready. Perhaps you'd like to help Corrado with its prep? If so, I left a list of things to get started with on his talk page. If you're not able to help, then I'd suggest you withdraw your nomination and let Corrado submit it when the article is closer to being ready. MeegsC (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

While I would glady want to help in the future, I do not think that I just have the sheer time to do so currently. I suppose that I will withdraw my nomination as you said. Once again I apologize for this entire mess up. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 08:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Pichemist, thanks for the above. I'm sorry I jumped on you a bit; I was frustrated on Corrado's behalf! Please note that you can nominate an article that you weren't previously involved with for GA; you just need to engage with the primary authors first! You can do that right on the article's talk page, or by approaching them directly on their own talk pages. If you're going to nominate an article you haven't been involved in writing, it obviously helps to be familiar with the subject matter (or to at least have access to relevant reference sources), so that you can answer any questions or address any issues that come up during the review. In most cases, reviewers don't pass an article without requiring at least some work. MeegsC (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Santa_Rosa_(Mesoamerican_Site)

I just wanted to make a clarifying comment about a page I am creating titled Santa Rosa (Mesoamerican Site). You mentioned that you don't "recommend taking screenshots of a "world" in Minecraft and saying it is a professionally done 3D render." Although it is indeed a 3D rendering, nowhere on my page did I claim it was "professionally done" so your claim is a bit misleading.

You also mention that I need to expand on the sources, which is a little vague, but otherwise I think I have polished up all the necessary requirements and believe the page deserves a second chance at resubmission. Thanks. Eman2223 (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not think that having screenshots of a Minecraft-built site is acceptable as I do not believe there were any references backing up the actuality of the site. I will re-review shortly as yes, I do agree with the fact that it is looking much better now. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 08:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The 3D rendering was something I personally did in my free time in the Blender program, so there really wasn't anything specific to reference. Although the model of the site is to-scale, I understand that because it wasn't done by a professional and professionally published it doesn't belong on the page. Regardless, I took it off as it isn't really essential to the page. Thanks for taking a look at it. Eman2223 (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand, I'll give the page a look in a bit _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 08:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay so after quick review my only problem are the references, if you would take a look at the other articles in the main space and format your references in a similar way, then I would think that the article would be good to go. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 08:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok will do. I formatted it in a way similar to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiapa_de_Corzo_(Mesoamerican_site). I just finished fixing what I believe you are looking for. I added links and numbered the references. How does it look now? Would you still be able to approve it? Eman2223 (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as I just did. (Please disregard my previous message) _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 09:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Great. Thank you so much! Eman2223 (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fort Saint Elmo

The article Fort Saint Elmo you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Fort Saint Elmo for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Protests against SOPA and PIPA

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Protests against SOPA and PIPA 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Rjjiii -- Rjjiii (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Protests against SOPA and PIPA

The article Protests against SOPA and PIPA you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Protests against SOPA and PIPA for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rjjiii -- Rjjiii (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard Ellis (Maltese photographer)

The article Richard Ellis (Maltese photographer) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Richard Ellis (Maltese photographer) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Accepted AfC articles

Hello!

I just wanted to let you know that a couple times when accepting AfC drafts, you've added duplicate categories and DEFAULTSORTs, as well as sometimes not always removing all needed content. See Special:Diff/1130757079 and Special:Diff/1130756132. Just wanted to let you know ~ Eejit43 (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey! It's usually me using the AFCH tool but I'll keep an eye out in the future. Thanks. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 21:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Pichemist!

Happy New Year!

Pichemist,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 09:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

ary 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bog Meadow Pond has been accepted

Bog Meadow Pond, 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 12:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)