User talk:GuineaPigC77

Hi. This is my talk page. 𒅗𒌤 means "to speak" in ancient Sumerian. I find the etymology to be pretty beautiful, it literally means "to pour out the voice".

Please ping me when replying on other pages, thank you.

The Editor's Barnstar

I always get grumpy when people "throw the baby out with the bathwater" in response to edits that have helpful and unhelpful parts. So when I saw these edits to April Fools' Day, I rushed to find the right partial revert before someone dropped a hasty rollback. So I was pleasantly surprised to see that I had been beaten to the punch, but by the same partial revert I was going for. That was refreshing to see. Keep up the good work! (P.S. For full content-improvement-oriented reverting, as I like to think of it, I'd recommend dropping a note on the IP's talkpage explaining the revert. Otherwise they may not understand where their content went and make the same edit again, inadvertently starting an edit war. I've got a RedWarn template with a quick prefab friendly "I reverted your message" message, if you want.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thank you Tamzin! You made my day :-)

Yep I'm still learning new things and being bold (and often wrong), but I want to become a good editor, so thanks for the feedback. So is the IP's talk page more appropriate than the article's talk page? I don't think I understand how notifications work.

Thank you so much for your encouragement and guidance! GuineaPigC77 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll start off with a disclaimer that I'm just talking about my preferred style of patrolling and dealing with new users / IPs. There are some people who take a very black-and-white, formulaic approach, and there's no policy against that, but I don't think it's ideal, and in some cases I'm not sure it even breaks even on benefit/detriment to the encyclopedia. So with that said, to answer your question, for a content dispute you should usually use the article's talkpage, but if it's just a matter of explaining to a new user why you've reverted their edit, I find it's often better to start off with a message on their usertalk, and then if things move in the direction of productive content discussion (which to be honest is rare) you can always say "Let's move this to the article's talkpage." But you don't want to clutter up the article's talkpage with, like, a long exchange where you're explaining what the verifiability policy is. As to how notifications work, a user should be notified if you edit their talkpage, and also if you mention their name in a signed comment on a new line (called a "ping"), and also if you mention their name in an edit summary. (There's caveats on the middle one... you can enable notifications for successful and unsuccessful pings [except edit-summary pings] in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. And there's also the matter of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, where some users don't get some notifications, which... ugh. I don't have any great advice for dealing with that.)

Please let me know if you have any further questions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tamzin. That's super helpful. If it's obvious vandalism, especially BLP, I'll just revert; if it's a good faith edit but fails to meet a policy of some sort I'll leave a friendly message on their talk page; if it becomes more productive and therefore relevant for others we'll move it to the Talk page. And I understand notifications better now. Thank you! GuineaPigC77 (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:GuineaPigC77/Archive 1

I'm enjoying editing Wikipedia and I think I'll stick around. Which means that my signature needs some cuneiform. Just testing the new sig here. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 18:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muisca raft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malay.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and again thanks for your input on the peer review for Logic. I wanted to let you know that I've listed Knowledge for peer review. Since I found our last exchange quite productive, I was hoping to get your feedback on this article as well. Please don't feel any obligation in case you don't have the time or you don't find the topic appealing. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Phlsph7! That sounds delightful. I'm juggling a few things at the moment so it may take me a few days before I can look at it carefully, but I'm interested. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 05:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. Please take your time. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GuineaPigC77: Sorry, I think I forgot to ping you about the peer review of Schramm's model. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool I'll take a look soon - thanks for the ping! GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 18:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for delay, I will probably be back to editing this week, and this project is still of interest to me! GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 06:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, please take your time. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Phlsph7! Was distracted for longer than anticipated. I noticed that Schramm's model has completed peer review and is now listed at GAN. If you're still looking for input, I am happy to go through together. But the first reviewer didn't seem to have too many problems, so perhaps it's in good shape. One minor comment is that in each of the images that contain a circle, the horizontal lines in the circle are not perfectly horizontal. I'd be happy to discuss on the talk page. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 16:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to get some more input on the article. It doesn't need to be as detailed as your previous reviews unless you have the time. I hadn't noticed that the lines were oblique. Luckily, the images are in svg format, so this was easy to fix. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great. Glad for the svg format, much more convenient than a manual fix. I left some minor comments on the articles talk page. Not much to complain about! Overall it's very clear and concise. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 12:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peru–Yale University dispute, 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 B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major 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.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hoary (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you guessed it: The above is automated boilerplate. But it sprang from a decision by me (claiming to be a fellow human) rather than by an algorithm that this was "B". Well done! As you'll notice, I touched it up here and there: it's quite likely that some of this was mistaken; do feel free to revert. -- Hoary (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Hoary! I'm so happy this is an article now! And that you are human ;-) Thanks for taking the time to go over this, and for your kind words. Your changes are helpful and I see that others have worked on it now as well. I do plan to take this to review and do more work on it - there are probably similar stories that could have articles too. Thank you!! GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 18:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		Thanks for all the time and effort you put into the in-depth peer reviews at Logic, Wood-pasture hypothesis, and Knowledge! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Phlsph7!! It's really fun to learn about these topics while going through them. Since I'm a new reviewer, I'll also say thanks to you for your patience with the process. And... kudos right back at you for taking on some of these top-importance projects and for volunteering your expertise for the encyclopedia :-) GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 05:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Separate Reality (climbing route), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ready for GAN. I was looking through the talk page and the article and the concerns I've left are hardly preventative of a GA; they seem more pressing for something like an FAC. I'll be more free in the coming weeks so can try and assist in fixing up remaining concerns, but I would recommend nominating it now/soon, since sometimes GAN articles take a few weeks to be picked up by a reviewer anyways. Congratulations on your hard work. Best – Aza24 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aza24! Wonderful to hear, and apologies for the long delay - I had a few other projects going and wanted to be sure I'll be responsive during the process, even factoring in a delay. I will nominate it today :-) GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 16:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Muisca raft 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 Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Muisca raft you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Muisca raft for comments about the article, and Talk:Muisca raft/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Music of Mesopotamia 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Music of Mesopotamia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Music of Mesopotamia for comments about the article, and Talk:Music of Mesopotamia/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Iazyges for your assistance with the FAC process. I do have a few novice questions.

• I often have trouble judging speed on Wikipedia. Is the process proceeding fast enough? I don't want to sacrifice quality, but I also know that this is peoples' time. Also, what is a good amount of time to give advance notice of a big edit (like the outline shuffling we are planning)? I've worked 1-on-1 with several editors so it's easy to see when a consensus is reached and when changes can be made. But here we have 7 editors, so I want to make sure I'm getting it right.
• Thanks for your major assistance with the images. This is an aspect of Wikipedia that is still very confusing to me, so there is no way I'd be able to address those concerns on my own.

GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 05:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GuineaPigC77: Sorry I completely missed this message, only saw it when I went to drop a similar message asking how you thought it was progressing, and how you were feeling about it; it seems fine to me as long as people are actively involved. The larger issue comes when there is a large-scale rewrite after people have already signed off as supporting; a lot of people seem to be putting forth contingent supports (i.e. they will sign off when others believe it is ready), so I don't think this will be an issue. I think it is proceeding at a good pace, and I'm impressed by the amount of work you've put in. The first FA is always the hardest (and I'm only half-lying), especially when it's a top-level article such as the music of an entire period and area. Image copyright and source work are some of the most complex and technical stuff on the platform (aside from coding, but I leave that to other people), so I'm happy to take it on, it was very daunting to me when I first started out. All around, I think the review is progressing well, and the article seems in better shape than before, so I wouldn't worry too much. There is, as I mentioned, a risk of a procedural close per the whole "changed after supports", but that is not so huge a problem, as the two-week minimum before you can renominate it should give you time to fix any remaining issues. Basically, if not this round, I think very quickly in the next, it will pass FAC. An enormous bit of work on your end, congratulations! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Iazyges. Good to hear that, sounds like worst case scenario is to renominate after two weeks. Yep the technical stuff is all new to me, but I will certainly be studying the fancy stuff that has been done to the article in the past few weeks. I'll want to model future projects on it so I'm glad we're doing it the right way. Thanks again for your assistance it's been huge for me. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 20:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; sorry to have thrown you in the deep end like this! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but there's no apology necessary, I really should have asked directly (and listened to boldface words). But this article is getting awesome with all this feedback and assistance, so I'm grateful and excited that we're doing it. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 23:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges I’m mostly finished implementing the suggest changes. A few more novice questions:

• I have an article I’d like to use (in English, but appearing in a German language journal), and not sure how to format the source: [1] Do you know what to do here?
• I’ve done the wiki links. I looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Principles, and it seems to say to put them where they’re useful, but only link the first occurrence. Does this mean I must link it at first occurrence? Where I’ve placed them now seems reasonable for a reader, but just want to check on this.
• I’m working on the captions now. May ask for assistance with the style editing? I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions and it doesn’t say much about grammar, just punctuation. My main question is: if I choose a format, must I follow that format in all images? For example, in an image of an artifact, I aim to include the material, place of discovery, etc., but I don’t always have that information. I’m happy to dig if this is what is needed.

GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 17:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First formatting I believe should be actually be a book chapter format: {{cite book |editor-last1=Pruzsinszky |editor-first1=Regine |editor-last2=Shehata |editor-first2=Dahlia|last1=Ziegler|first1= Nele |title=Musiker und Tradierung: Studien zur Rolle von Musikern bei der Verschriftlichung und Tradierung von literarischen Werken |date=2010 |publisher=Wiener Offene Orientalistik |location=Vienna |isbn=978-3-643-50131-8 |chapter=Teachers and Students. Conveying Musical Knowledge in the Kingdom of Mari}}

It should generally always be linked at first occurrence, but sometimes there are exceptions made when it would be very confusing; such as if the guy comes back with a different name and role entirely. I'm not certain about the image captions to be honest, I think Nikkimaria might be the one to ask regarding that. I'll ask them in the page itself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I've added the reference and the desired text. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 18:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges these are my remaining items (all from Furius):

• Linking to museum pages. Particularly in the String instruments section which lists some seals featuring lutes, plus the seal in the Louvre featuring the flute player. I'm finding various seals, but it's hard to match the description with the museum object with certainty. I've found some but not all.

  I'll work on tracking them down. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Should all be done now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow you are fast. Thanks so much that's amazing. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 16:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears I missed some of it; the seals are still outstanding, but all images actually inserted should have museum attribution. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm working on adding a few sentences about the santur instrument. I have access to the The New Grove Dictionary Of Music And Musicians 5 Ed. 2nd; the publication date is listed as 1904, but they discuss Iraqi television, so I'm not sure what's going on there? I found it here: [2]

• It's definitely post-1995, and I believe the date should be 2001, based on what I've found, with ISBN 0-333-60800-3. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great, I added the new paragraph on the dulcimer in the Influence section and also mentioned it in the string section. I think I'll need to move the santur image as well. The reference still says 1904 as I'm not sure how to notate the issue with the year of publication. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 17:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)a[reply]

In this case, you should cite it to 2001 since it's the actual publication date and versions differ; it seems the person who uploaded it to archive.org erred in the date. If there are identical, or functionally so, versions, but you actually read/used the later one, you would use the "year=" parameter for the later date, and an "orig-year" parameter for the original publication date. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the tip! GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 02:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Finally, I'm having trouble locating A Companion to Ancient Greek and Roman Music (2020), edited by Tosca A. C. Lynch & Eleonora Rocconi, specifically the chapter by Franklin.

  Might be accessible from Libgen (nudge nudge wink wink). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it. I will likely reach out to the Wikipedia Library for the sources if we can't otherwise find them, but I wanted to keep you posted on where I'm at. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 14:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'

• Sorry I've missed most of the FAC process GP, but I'm glad to see that yourself and Iazyges are doing fine work. I have a copy of Lynch/Rocconi 2020, what are you looking for from it? Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's great, thanks Aza24! I'm looking for the chapter by Franklin to see if there's anything new to incorporate into the article. Furius suggested it as a good one to look at / cite just in case anything has changed. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 00:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe our Grand Path To Victory is thus: Wait on review from Airship (which may also involve source review), get a source review from him, or another willing editor, then ping Phlsph7, who has made his support effectually contingent on expert reviews from Furius et al and a more comprehensive source review. The support of these three, plus a passed source review and image review, are the minimum to pass FAC; given the daunting massive wall of text that exists due to extensive changes during the review, I think it unlikely that another reviewer (except perhaps a source reviewer) will show up, but this should not be a problem (and indeed, should accelerate promotion) if it occurs. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay great, that sounds like a plan. Thanks for keeping me posted it's a big help. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 04:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it looks like we shall have to wait the two-week period; in the interim, I'll take a dive through to make sure all the little stuff (ref order, language templates, duplicate links) are in perfect order. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a bit of a pain, and I hope that you're not feeling discouraged. This article has certainly gotten awesome (just look at what it was like back in July!) and I imagine that it will pop through quickly when the process is re-opened in two weeks time. Do please ping me then, so that I can register my unequivocal support. Furius (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not discouraged! The longer it takes the better it gets? Also, I'm just grateful for everyone's patience. Furius your comments have been excellently helpful thank you so much. (I did have a look at July - wow!) Thanks for your encouragement, and I will let you know when we re-nominate. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 05:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Iazyges No worries I'm in no rush, and I think the next time around will go smoother. Seems like we want to get Airship's comments if possible, can that happen on the talk page? In the meantime I'll work on notating things like tablet numbers and try to provide more museum links because I do think those are helpful for the reader. Thanks so much Iazyges for your many forms of support. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 05:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem! It also occurs to me we may want to figure out what article name we want, to clarify the actual target, in the interim period. Personally, I favor an RM of all the aligned pages (Architecture of Mesopotamia, Art of Mesopotamia], and others included), to insert "ancient". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have a strong opinion about name. Mesopotamia describes Mesopotamia as a historical region, which to me suggests that it already limits our scope to ancient Mesopotamia, and so a change would be unnecessary. On the other hand, the word "ancient" often (but not always) precedes "Mesopotamia" in the titles of our sources. Would we also change the name of the Mesopotamia article? GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 05:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think not; the periodization of that article isn't well defined internally (ending in the 3rd or 7th century AD in some places, the early BCs in others), and is generally kind of a mess. That being said, I think if any reasonably well-informed person heard the term "Mesopotamia" alone, they would necessarily understand that it was the historical region, rather than the geographic region itself, so it would be a WP:COMMONNAME win; this understanding does not necessarily exist for the Music or Art or Architecture of the region, where some confusion might arise as to the periodization of the region, rather than it being inherently periodized the same as Mesopotamia itself. I don't feel strongly about the name either, but it was mentioned by multiple people as something of a hangup, so a requested move for the three cannot hurt, I think. Either the articles shall be moved, and perhaps sacrifice a bit of efficiency for clarity, or we can point to the failed RM as a justification for the present article title. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not commenting - forgot (and I think perhaps Gog's close was just a little hasty, but perhaps it was for the best). I'll get round to the article talk page at some point, and then ping me if you want a source spotcheck at FAC part 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @AirshipJungleman29! Definitely looking forward to your comments, and that sounds like a good plan. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 02:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Music of Mesopotamia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ASOR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GuineaPigC77, it has been quite a while since your last review of one of my articles. I saw on your user page that you are interested in education and was wondering whether you might be inclined to review the article Education. It is currently nominated for featured article status and your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Education/archive1. Chances are that you are busy with other things so please feel under no obligation. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlsph7! Just returning from a short hiatus and a long string of outside projects. I was thrilled to come back and see that Logic reached FA, congrats on that!!

I'd be happy to go through the article if you are still looking for input and if I'm not too late to the party? I will read it with interest today. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 21:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and welcome back! The review has already been going on for a while but there is no fixed time limit. If you have the time, your comments would be greatly appreciated. It's an important topic so getting it to FA status or at least a few steps in that direction would be beneficial. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too!! Glad to back in the community :-)

I left some comments on the FAC page. I like the solid foundation that’s here, but I think it needs expansion first. I want to make sure I’m understanding the intended scope of the article. Is there a limit to the length of the article? I assume this is one of those articles that pushes the limits in terms of prose length. But I think it needs to cover more. I’d be happy to assist with any of that. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 14:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed and helpful suggestions! I wrote a first response at the review page and it's probably best if keep most of our discussion there so that the other reviewers and coordinators know what's going on. The gist of it is that WP:SIZERULE limits how much information we can pack into one article and how much summarizing is necessary to keep its length in check. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]