User talk:Shocksingularity

Hello, Shocksingularity!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 05:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Shock singularity. Thanks! StarryGrandma (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

Shock singularity, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

StarryGrandma (talk) 06:37, 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

Mass inflation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 15:42, 3 June 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

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Shocksingularity (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Shocksingularity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Queefster". The reason given for Queefster's block is: " Your account has been blocked indefinitely because your username is a clear violation of Wikipedia's username policy – it is obviously offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, disruptive, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}}. ".

• Blocking administrator: ‪Mfield‬ (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: I have unblocked you. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 14:52, 21 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

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:51, 18 November 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

Happy New Year!

Shocksingularity,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 05:58, 3 January 2026 (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

May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations, Shocksingularity! The article you nominated, Black hole, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Congrats! Really awesome work. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! I'm so excited!!!! Shocksingularity (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Shocksingularity,

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Category:Fiction about the bootstrap paradox has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Redirects you have created have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 28 § "Stelllar" typo redirects until a consensus is reached. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 04:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that black hole has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 July 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be posted there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Shocksingularity; I've noticed you are the primary author on Black Holes: The Edge of All We Know and that you have some knowledge with Hawking radiation. Before TFA for Black hole takes place I was trying to upgrade the article's mention on Hawking radiation to be consistent with Kip Thorne's book on the subject. Other editors don't think the Kip Thorne material is relevant. Could you take a look at the Talk page for Black hole. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

This summary of the discussion is either dishonest or incompetent, as no one has argued what you say here. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Temp account above has been asked by sysops to stop making personal attacks. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Shocksingularity; This is a separate thread after I've noticed your previous interest in disability articles currently listed on your User page. Are you still interested in this subject and in improving articles on Wikipedia which deal with this subject? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am! Shocksingularity (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've just noticed your edit at ID and was wondering if there was a phase two to the edits you made about IQ ranges. The IQ delineation ranges appear to be taken seriously by the Sanford-Binet folks; is it worth adding a section about its adequacy/inadequacy of these ranges in the article since so many scholars and practitioners are influenced by it? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I was actually consider adding that somewhere! Do you think it would be better in the ID article or the IQ classification article? Shocksingularity (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you are intereted in upgrading ID towards peer review status, then it makes sense to get it into the ID article. There might be some adjustment to the TOC as well to be compatible with your other edit from the other day. Let me what you think or want to try in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've gone ahead and adapted your edit from the classifcation article into the main article, with links added for each of the DSM editions, etc. Maybe you can take a glance at it. ErnestKrause (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that looks good, ty! Shocksingularity (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking a look. I've taken the extra step of now adding in Alzheimer's and other old age ID-related notes and citations; it seems that the article might need a bit more help than just 1-2 editor(s) for enhancements. It might be interesting to try to organize some of the article in the article along the lines of genetically inherited patients who have no speech due to ID, as separate from developmentally acquired deficits which preclude the acquisition of speech. Also, can more be brought in about the molecular biology of which genes are involved in Down's and other ID diagnoses? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! I appreciate the award! (It was very hard work.) Shocksingularity (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am not surprised. All FAC are hard, but you picked an especially tricky - and fascinating - one to start with. I am looking forward to your next. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please stop making mass-changes with AWB. You have already introduced multiple errors with your careless approach such as 'Eleno/Elena de Céspedes, who was born a woman in 1545 and later convicted of sodomy and contempt of the church for marrying a woman, despite his insistence he was a hermaphrodite who had developed male genitalia and therefore it was only right for him to marry a woman and not a man.'. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. I try to use my best judgement and be careful when using AWB, but I can make mistakes sometimes. It was my impression that the use of "hermaphrodite" was considered outdated and offensive for use referring to humans according to the intersex community. I will try to be more careful in editing such articles in the future, especially ones about historical figures. However, I am not sure why the term "intersex" wouldn't be used in a plot summary for a modern piece of media, at least as long as the character's intersex variation is clarified when relevant. Shocksingularity (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hermaphrodite may be outdated/offensive to refer to a person, and I wouldn't include it in a BLP. But it is a very specific term, where as intersex is a broad term and context is lost with that.

If the plot/show says 'hermaphrodite', we should go with that. Unless the show is using hermaphrodite in some odd sense and not the typical male and female genitalia replacing it with 'intersex' is just losing context. Some of the plots could be rewritten to avoid the term but that requires a cautious and methodical approach, one that cannot be obtained via AWB/quick editing. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is not an archaic term but current UK usage. See this style guide and NHS website Please do not "correct" it in articles on UK topics such as Down's Syndrome Association. I know about this kind of US/ UK difference as I have Schnitzler's syndrome. PamD 04:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

And please in particular remember never to alter the wording within a quote, as you did in the BBC quote in this edit. And the wording in articles such as 1998 New Year Honours is taken directly from the official published list of the honours and should not be altered because an editor finds the wording "archaic". I've reverted some of your changes to very obviously UK-based topics (and a couple of Irish ones, having checked the source): I don't know how many other articles on non-country-specific topics you've changed, where the original creator was not American and chose to use British English for the article.

The area of special education or SEND (as here) is another thing - UK terminology may well not agree with your edits, but I'm not going to pursue that. PamD 09:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry about the quote. I did not notice that was inside a quote when I made the edit; I usually catch those but that must have been one I missed! And similarly for the New Year Honours page, I tried to skip those but that one must have slipped through. Many apologies again.

In terms of the special education related articles, what I was mainly doing was changing phrasing so "special needs" wouldn't be used as an adjective; e.g. changing "special needs child" to "child with special needs". As far as I am aware, this terminology is similar in different English dialects, because "special needs" is a (plural) noun rather than an adjective. Shocksingularity (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry about that; I was not aware of the UK difference but I had seen the NIH recommendation in 1975 to remove the possessive which is why I was removing them as "outdated". I will try to stay more conscientious of dialect differences in the future, particularly when using AWB. Thanks for the heads up! Shocksingularity (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please be careful about this kind of thing. You seem to have made the same error with psychotic disorders. ^SMason_Garrison 21:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

See my rv, per both the DSM-5 and the ICD-11 schizophrenia is considered a type of psychotic disorder.

Also, I don't see how this is the same thing, given it is not a dialect issue. Shocksingularity (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

But we don't need to isolate pscyhotic disorders away from other conditions. ^SMason_Garrison 21:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Shocksingularity. I notice that you've added "had sex with"/"have sex with" in place of other phrases referring to intercourse in quite a few Greek mythology articles, pointing to MOS:EUPH. While I agree that "made love to" – the phrase which that guideline refers to – is overly flowery and should generally be replaced, I don't see an issue with "slept with" and similar constructions. To my ears, "had sex with" sounds rather modern, colloquial, and literal in the context of Greek mythology. These instances of intercourse typically have their origins in ancient poetry, which often described such unions in exceedingly flowery terms. Looking through Robin Hard's The Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology, a standard and widely used handbook on the subject, "seduced"/"seduces" is used about 45–50 times, "slept with"/"sleeps with"/etc. about 35–40 times, "intercourse with" about 25–30 times, and "made love"/"making love" about 5–10 times. As far as I can tell, "had sex with" doesn't occur once. I don't mean to suggest that the phrase is never used in this context – searching for "poseidon had sex with" gives back a few Google Books results, for example – but I'm struck that the handful of Greek mythology reference works I most frequently use don't appear to contain it at all. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for the heads up! I will try to avoid replacing "slept with" in those contexts, and be more careful when working with articles on historical topics. Feel free to revert if you'd like. Shocksingularity (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Great, thanks. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The change caused information loss for male/male couplings. The old wording "Achilles makes love to Troilus" suggests Achilles is the active partner during intercourse, and Troilus passive.

The new version "Achilles has sex with Troilus" no longer encodes any of that color, yet still comes across as coarser to me.

I don't think it calls for reverting the edit but I will think about how to balance the relevant concerns.

StealthyGazebo (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Shocksingularity. Thank you for your work on Relativistic reflection. Another editor, Fortek67, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work! Please fix ref 5 and add links to the article. Thank you.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Fortek67}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Fortek67 (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know why ref 5 isn't working. I've been trying to fix it. Shocksingularity (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Shocksingularity. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tomographic Experiment using Radiative Recombinative Ionospheric EUV and Radio Sources, 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) 04:06, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you today for Black hole, introduced: "I have been working on this article since October 2025, and I feel that it has improved significantly since. @Johnjbarton and I have worked on editing the factual content to ensure all content is accurate and verifiable, and add sources from scientific journals (as new as possible, when relevant) to replace old sources from popular science websites. We have also cleaned up some information that was not within the scope of the encyclopedia."! - Enjoy your fist TFA day! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome!!! I'm so excited for my first TFA day!!! I have been telling everyone I know about it and making them go to the main page... Shocksingularity (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

black hole

Thank you for quality articles around Black hole, such as Black Holes: The Edge of All We Know, for TOI-1338 b and Geneva Emotional Music Scale, for "I tried to make this section flow a bit better", for a cute infobox about "yourself", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 3038 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Aww tysm! That is so sweet of you! :) Shocksingularity (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Shocksingularity:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Category:People with psychotic disorders has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 21:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Category:People with neurodevelopmental disorders has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 21:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Shocksingularity. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Tomographic Experiment using Radiative Recombinative Ionospheric EUV and Radio Sources".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Z source, 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 a title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • . doi:10.1086/307188. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) ** . doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15014.x. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) ** . doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039983. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (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) 03:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply