User talk:Shocksingularity

Hi I edited it! Shocksingularity (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing, but please read WP:LINKING, you added many links to Neenah-Nodaway Yacht Club, but some shouldn't have been linked or were links to disambiguation pages.

--pro-anti-air (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you commented on my talk page while not fixing the links if you saw they had a problem? Shocksingularity (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cause I was too busy (and lazy) to do that. --pro-anti-air (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valid Shocksingularity (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Tysm for reviewing it :) Shocksingularity (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Ok I will changethem Shocksingularity (talk) 15:36, 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

Good luck and happy editing! :) Shocksingularity (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! We've been having little success getting our page approved. I wonder how else we can improve the sources? Can you help in tightening what we have now? Draft:Carepatron JamiefrewSF (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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! :)

Good luck and happy editing! Shocksingularity (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Анчаров, Михаил Леонидович — Википедия I didn't check his IDs and I am not his relative. I see the same information everywhere. Just google translation of public data. AlexVasilevInfo (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ancharov_biografia_2ed_2022.pdf AlexVasilevInfo (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but I am not sure that we can use this pdf version of his biography. Technically lib.ru is open Russian library. I provided link on paper book. AlexVasilevInfo (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what else do you want from me?

Again, excuse my English, but proving the existence of this man is like proving the existence of Astrid Lingered. AlexVasilevInfo (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

last two sentences of the biography section

what sentences? I will find then in Ancharov_biografia_2ed_2022.pdf AlexVasilevInfo (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singer-songwriter - Wikipedia he is here too as songwriter AlexVasilevInfo (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not create any more redirects. 131.150.163.32 (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why not Shocksingularity (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you can't 131.150.163.32 (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to stop! 131.150.163.32 (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why though? Is there something wrong w my redirects? Shocksingularity (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is 131.150.163.32 (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with them? Shocksingularity (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IDK 131.150.163.32 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your diligence on auditing my draft. 0x48fe75df30 (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Your article was well written, I'll definitely accept it if you just added a couple more citations :) Shocksingularity (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Actually they've made not statements at all about their gender or relationship with the suspect, and per MOS:GENDERID they should absolutely and only be referred to as partner - per the vast majority of sources. 2001:8F8:1DD0:5D2D:2D7C:C94E:5D83:4ED5 (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re your recent proposal to delete Labiobarbus lineatus, all species are notable as per Wikipedia:Notability (species), I have deleted your request for deletion. Quetzal1964 (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted Starlark - Feel free to accept the draft at your leisure. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:30, 20 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]

The draft likely should not have been moved per this decline but it is moot at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean release is in 2 days anyway, there's already pretty significant coverage out there to demonstrate it follows WP:GNG Shocksingularity (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for accepting my article! It really made my morning! HoodedBeast09 (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome! It made my morning to see this nice post on my talk page :) Shocksingularity (talk) 20:17, 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 translated it from Spanish, it was on the Spanish wiki but I feel like they don't have as high of standards for WP:GNG as the English wiki does. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the commentary! If I took the time to add more names, would you accept it? Thanks! HoodedBeast09 (talk) 00:34, 26 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]

No, it's totally fine! I didn't think it was rude, I was honestly just worried that my AfC comment came off as rude. Shocksingularity (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're totally fine, man. I didn't think that at all. Have a great day! KindaThatGuy (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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.

Shouldn't the importance of music theory articles first be discussed on the Music Theory page? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The importance of an article probably does not depend on its quality, yet... — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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).

@Shocksingularity, I am very sorry to have drawn you in this silly quarrel which you could review in the talk pages of the Heinrich Schenker and Schenkerian analysis pages and which I thought had calmed down. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

A last word, about the importance of Schenkerian analysis today: see this announcement on the website of the SMT itself. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:53, 28 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]

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:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Shocksingularity (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that categories must be supported by an article's verifiable text. As such, please don't add categories such as Category:Fiction about the bootstrap paradox unless the article specifically mentions that paradox or you can also add supporting text that makes reference to it. DonIago (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

My bad, I thought they were the same person Shocksingularity (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	that userbox is amazing BelowFlames (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My first barnstar! Thank you so much! :D Glad you like it Shocksingularity (talk) 01:46, 2 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]

I've undid both mistaken edits and added a clear disambiguation note in the header of each of the papers . Cheers רמרום (talk) 11:09, 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]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Truth & Justice (podcast), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• 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)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shock, I noticed that you added "in Italy" to the short description at International Buy-A-Priest-A-Beer Day. While my short description is by no means perfect, the article doesn't seem to mention Italy at all. Did you perhaps misread laity? Toadspike [Talk] 21:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact misread it! My bad! Changed it to "Annual celebration in Catholicism", feel free to change it to whatever at will Shocksingularity (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
42		Epic Level Handbook (talk)	Add sources
44		Book of Exalted Deeds (talk)	Add sources
78		Baarle (talk)	Add sources
11		Complete Divine (talk)	Add sources
1,182		Taishō era (talk)	Add sources
404		Ebeye Island (talk)	Add sources
150		Cleric (Dungeons & Dragons) (talk)	Cleanup
1,433		Salvador Allende (talk)	Cleanup
115		Tomb of Annihilation (talk)	Cleanup
44		Draconomicon (talk)	Expand
51		Highway Trust Fund (talk)	Expand
265		Illithid (talk)	Expand
213		Tiamat (Dungeons & Dragons) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
173		Character class (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
434		Magician (fantasy) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
631		Gimme Shelter (talk)	Merge
49		Flies' graveyard (talk)	Merge
100		Dimasa people (talk)	Merge
10		Pythonesque (play) (talk)	Wikify
233		Revolución Libertadora (talk)	Wikify
4,385		Reptilian humanoid (talk)	Wikify
5		Paul Nwosu (talk)	Orphan
4		State Publishing House of Ukraine (talk)	Orphan
4		Ziyarat Amin Allah (talk)	Orphan
16		Colvale (talk)	Stub
11		Monsters of Faerûn (talk)	Stub
97		Lena Miculek (talk)	Stub
3		1900 London University by-election (talk)	Stub
5		Grete Albrecht (talk)	Stub
7		Song and Silence (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) 03:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

oops mb! I will make note of that for the future Shocksingularity (talk) 19:23, 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]

 Done. Shocksingularity (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dan Leonard. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from 2025 United States federal government shutdown. Redlinks are useful and can often be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

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]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to The Terminator, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You were previously advised that categories should not be added unless they're supported by the article's verifiable content, yet you've once again added a category about the "bootstrap paradox" to this article despite the fact that the term appears nowhere in the article. If you want to add the category, add a mention of the term, with proper sourcing, to the article as well. DonIago (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shocksingularity. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of AncientSans, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A font is not web content. Not within scope of A7. . Thank you. Whpq (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, you're a goat Shocksingularity (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shocksingularity (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at the edit request on Template talk:Second presidency of Donald Trump? Thanks. 2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:5980:F37B:E449:F198 (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Shocksingularity (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you created User:Shocksingularity/Black hole improvement. I think you should copy that to Talk:Black hole so more editors are aware of it. ZergTwo (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You edited the Draft: Partial meltdown of Leningrad unit 1 and Chernobyl unit 1 yesterday. You being a New page reviewer, I would like to request you something. Is it the editor who decides which Draft submission he/she will review, or does the system who decides it. Also could you review the draft you just edited and the Draft: Bharat small modular reactor please and clear them to be published, as I being a student can't give my 100% attention to editing Wikipedia and also need to focus on studies and as the time which it takes for the drafts to be reviewed is long which also involves regular edits to the draft. Thank you. IND123456 (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors decide which draft submission to review, although there is also a button to randomly review a submission. Shocksingularity (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm behind on editing and following up on this article, but I've reviewed your comments and resubmitted the page for review. I wrote the following in my re-submission and wanted to confirm through you as well. I minimized content with only relevant information that is searchable and easy to find. Used Grammarly AI for spelling, grammar, and correct punctuation corrections, but all written content was originally typed by me. Brasilianman (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shocksingularity, Thanks for approving my article for the mainspace. You may be interested to know that the article has been proposed for deletion. I have tried to assemble my best arguments for why I see this as unwarranted and WP:NASTRO as a very difficult bar for any minor planet, other than those very high on the Torino scale, to meet. I am endeavoring to improve the article to survive this AfD.

Should you have anything you wish to say in its favor, or even should you find yourself agreeing with the critics of the article, you are welcome to weigh into the discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2025_UC11

I will always be grateful for the fact you gave my article a chance.

Best regards, Joe Cerniglia (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Shocksingularity (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Pasterski–Strominger–Zhiboedov triangle, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Revolving Doormat (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Works about cerebral palsy indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you closed "Remove Metre–tonne–second system of units", it had been less than two days since the most recent vote. You have to wait seven days before closing. ~2025-41858-23 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR, I was going to close them all anyway but couldn't do it until then because I had finals. I highly doubt that the proposal would have gotten 2 more oppose votes, seeing as every other vote on the entire proposal was support Shocksingularity (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Volten001 ^☎ 05:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Shocksingularity (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 4 § Intellectual disability subcats on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 20:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to be in favor of moving the human evolution section of the Vital Articles list, but we would need to reallocate the quota and you haven't voted for that. As long as you don't vote for the quota reallocation, your vote to move the section does nothing. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see that, sorry. Thanks for the heads up. Shocksingularity (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get any notifications or have you turned off notifications? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did get a notification, but I had just gotten back from a trip and had a lot of notifications, so I must've missed that one. I don't get them sent to my email because I don't want to be spammed Shocksingularity (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to tell you twice. Which of the notifications did you get? Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I got them, I just didn't see them. Is there a reason why this is an important matter? Shocksingularity (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering which notifications can reach you. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Apollo 10½: A Space Age Childhood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Astroworld. 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) 19:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :D Shocksingularity (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2025 Top Editor
		In 2025 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, ty! Shocksingularity (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ErrorModelling (talk · contribs)
  • Perception Error Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Perception Error Model (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Shocksingularity, I've responded to your AfC review on my talk page regarding the parenthetical citation concern. I believe there may be a misunderstanding about the guideline. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks!

ErrorModelling (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ErrorModelling (talk · contribs)
  • Perception Error Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Perception Error Model (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hi Shocksingularity, I have fixed your concerns with citation style in my draft and responded on my talk page. I was wondering if you would be able to give the article another review? I believe the style of the article is now inkeeping with similar scientific wikipedia articles, so I would really appreciate any specific pointers if you don't think you can approve the article as it is.

Kind Regards,

ErrorModelling (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Scharb (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Promise of the Hereafter Conference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know how to make this more NPOV than it already is. All the sources that examine it, whether English, Hebrew or Arabic, share similar perspectives condemning the conference and its goals. Deliberately searching and adding pro-Hamas sources would be WP:FALSEBALANCE

Scharb (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for letting me know. I agree that deliberately adding pro-Hamas sources would be false balance, and I do not support Hamas. I was a bit more strict on that draft than I'd normally be, as the Israel-Palestine conflict is a contentious topic subject to arbitration rules.

The things I didn't think were necessarily NPOV were:

• The resolution presupposes the collapse or "disappearance" of the State of Israel, an event used interchangeably with the liberation of Palestine. I'd add a source or two for this. I know it seems like an obvious statement, but I don't think it can necessarily be inferred. Many people who support the liberation of Palestine do not necessarily support the collapse of Israel (I know Hamas does, but it is not specified that it is them saying this).
• Not an NPOV issue but you currently link to Salah Al-Din, which is a redirect to a disambiguation page.
• Source 5, by Marcus Jerome, is an opinion piece on a pro-Israel news site. This is fine in the analysis and reactions section, since you mention that he is saying this, but you do not clarify this in the footnotes. Footnote a is fine, in my opinion; with footnote b and c, I'd add another source if you could find one. Particularly, in footnote c, you mention something that Marcus said, but the footnote is placed before he is even mentioned later in the article.
• Wikilinking not letting them leave to slavery: Not necessarily the same thing. I'd remove this wikilink and move the discussion of this being slavery to the analysis and reactions section. Same with linking cleansing to ethnic cleansing: although what they are doing is obviously unethical, I don't know that it would necessarily be an ethnic cleansing, since the previous sentence implies that they intend to kill/remove anyone who supports Israel, whether Jewish or non-Jewish. I'm not sure if there's a guideline on this, but I generally do not use wikilinks that could reasonably be disputed.
• Footnote e quotes a historian, but does not include a citation.
• Source 2 is to a paper in an Israeli journal that also describes the Hamas's October 7th attacks as a genocide, which does not necessarily represent the scholarly consensus (see here and here). I would consider adding or replacing with another source.

Hope this helps, let me know if you have any more questions. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added, to the black hole page:

Wheeler, in a 1967 lecture to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Our Universe, Known and Unknown", used the phrase:

[B]y reason of its faster and faster infall [the surface of the imploding star] moves away from the [distant] observer more and more rapidly. The light is shifted to the red. It becomes dimmer millisecond by millisecond, and in less than a second is too dark to see...[The star], like the Cheshire cat, fades from view. One leaves only its grin, the other, only its gravitational attraction. Gravitational attraction, yes; light, no. ... Moreover, light and particles incident from outside [and] going down the black hole only add to its mass and increase its gravitational attraction.^[1]: 484

You reverted this, saying the article was too long. Maybe it is, but I think Wheeler's quote is worth noting. He is credited with popularizing the term black hole, and this is where he did it. And the image of a black hole as a cosmic Cheshire cat, leaving only its gravitational grin, shows up in popular science.

Thorne's book is without a Good Article, although it surely merits one. Let's work on that Charlie Faust (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind including some of that quote, I just think that including the full thing might be a little bit too long? I think just keeping part of the quote like "The star, like the Cheshire cat, fades from view. One leaves only its grin, and the other, only its gravitational attraction" This is still keeping the popular culture reference while removing scientific content that is already covered elsewhere. Thoughts? Shocksingularity (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. I think the quote is historically significant, as Wheeler is credited with popularizing "black hole", and this is where he did it. And the literary reference to the black hole as Cheshire cat, leaving only its gravitational grin, is fruitful. (I first heard it in Carl Sagan's Cosmos, in "The Lives of the Stars".)

But I like your idea of condensing, rather than eschewing, the quote. The heart of the matter, it seems to me, is: "[The star], like the Cheshire cat, fades from view. One leaves only its grin, the other, only its gravitational attraction. Gravitational attraction, yes; light, no. ... Moreover, light and particles incident from outside [and] going down the black hole only add to its mass and increase its gravitational attraction." There you have Wheeler's first mention of "black hole", and the first comparison of it to the Cheshire cat.

The Alice books have been a fruitful source for scientists and mathematicians. Eddington likened quantum theory to "Jabberwocky": "Something unknown is doing we don't know what." Charlie Faust (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was recently expanding the history section for intersex healthcare and went on a minor side quest into teratology since they have a little overlap. Since you recently edited the teratology article I thought you might find this article on PubMed giving an overview on the history of teratology useful: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3600518/

I noticed the teratology article lacked a history section so could be a useful to expand into. Or not, I'm not your mom. Have a pleasant morning/afternoon/evening. Urchincrawler (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Shocksingularity (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be making mass changes based on an essay. You need consensus for such edits per WP:AWBRULES, and you clearly are not paying close enough attention given you've changed proper nouns such as at Hennekam syndrome. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am paying close attention. Sorry for changing the proper nouns, but you reverted it and it is fine now. In the significant majority of my edits, the change was not controversial: for example, a lot of the changes I made were to plot summaries. I decided to WP:BEBOLD with a few I was unsure on but I am open to reversions. Additionally, many names of medical conditions have had the word "mental retardation" exchanged with "intellectual disability" since Rosa's Law and the DSM-V changed their own terminology. You won't see many medical sources post-2012 using the term anymore. Shocksingularity (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to seek consensus to make such changes via AWB per WP:AWBRULES. Many of these would be better being done manually as opposed to semi-automated. For example changing 'he appears to have mental retardation' would be better as 'he appears to be intellectually disabled' as opposed to 'he appears to have intellectual disability'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, but also, that's a very minor change and the grammar error was already there. I will try to be more careful with the grammar next time, and do note that I do usually edit what AWB gives me along the lines of what you said if the change doesn't make sense grammatically.

Also, WP:AWBRULES only requires seeking consensus if the change could be controversial. I don't see how changing "mental retardation", a term that can cause offense and has been deprecated since 2012 even in medical sources, to "intellectual disability", a term that means the exact same thing, is controversial. Just because something is not an official policy of Wikipedia does not mean it is controversial. Shocksingularity (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that if you try to seek consensus for this you can work out a better way to go about this and make better improvements, such as with making edits that improve grammar at the same time. '"Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus'. I'm against pretty much any AWB/semi-automated changes to article phrasings because they often lead to errors and involve forcing an opinion/belief without achieving consensus for it first. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shocksingularity. Thank you for your work on Geneva Emotional Music Scale. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for this clear and appropriately sourced and referenced article on a psychological scale for the emotional response to music; will be of interest to readers.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain: Thank you for the kind words! Shocksingularity (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shocksingularity. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:ZA-302, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm impressed with how understandable your work on black hole is. I'll try to review at FAC, but have bitten off a bit more than I can chew in other reviews. I hope there will be a review from non-technical editors too, as both my and Roy might have too much technical background to come up all the additional ideas to make it accessible to more people.

Given your work, I was wondering if you'd be willing to give feedback on a potential replacement guideline text at Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable/Workshop (talk). The guideline text narrowly failed to be accepted in an RfC last year. Now that I've incorporated the feedback from the RfC, I'm looking for a few more people to give feedback before relaunching a second RfC. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! No worries about FAC—I know we all have a lot going on, both on here and in real life. If you can't get to it, no worries!

I will check out the linked text. Thanks for the ping! Shocksingularity (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shocksingularity. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "ZA-302".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black hole, a link pointing to the disambiguation page High Life (film) was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it seems like there is light at the end of the Black hole, please let me know if you get stuck. In a few weeks will have more time to help. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate your offer, and will let you know. :) Shocksingularity (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition of Shocksingularity for accumulating at least 10 points in the January–February 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 27,750 articles and 7,050 redirects during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 16:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]