User talk:Panini!

🥪

This is Panini!'s talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Paper Mario

I assume you were heavily involved in the article getting the FA, I know it was 2 (wait, what, FOUR!? time flies when you're editing Wikipedia!) years ago but you might what to address the duplicate references tag, it being a FA and all. If not no worries I'll try to get to it but it might take a bit. Also, on a more serious note, I need to ask you now to please stop editing Wikipedia immediately (or start vandalising so you get blocked) becuase every time I see you around I am reminded that I haven't had a panini in ages (jk). Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRomean Nuts dude. Not only because that was 4 years ago, but because that tag must've slipped through my watchlist quickly. The user who added it is now blocked, but it is still a legitimate tag. I'm not sure how those all came to be; I never use those quote refs that all the duplicates use so someone may have added them at some point post-FA. WP:Refill can't fix it because the quotes mess with the bot, so I'll have to do it manually at some point. I'm busy at the moment but I will get on that. Thanks for letting me know! Panini! • 🥪 16:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from IT GuidePoint Corporation (23:46, 8 May 2025)

Hello - I own a very small consulting firm called IT GuidePoint Corporation. I was told to at least list the name and a brief (non-sales) description of when it was founded and who founded it (me). I really hope I did it right! --IT GuidePoint Corporation (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for taking the time to hide guestbooks, was fun to sort through. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Experimentswithtruth (04:37, 12 May 2025)

I already made a request to correct one statement or two .And can I start editing the article by me? --Experimentswithtruth (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @Experimentswithtruth! It looks like you were suggesting a change to be made to Kuriakose Elias Chavara. Usually, when you begin a discussion on an article's talk page it's because the change may be controversial and not everyone would agree to it. Simple corrections to fix facts are usually uncontroversial; it seems like you are just updating the article to detail new 2025 Vatican decrees, and by all means, feel free to add them to the article directly! There is no problem with being WP:BOLD and updating articles yourself to add newly relevant information.

I recommend finding a source to verify your info, even if it's just the decree itself.

Keep in mind, less popular pages may have inactive talk pages, simply because nobody is there to view them. If your questions don't receive a response, feel free to go through with your change on your own. If you really need the second opinion you can ping any other contributors to the article. Panini! • 🥪 16:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May music

check my talk today for two pics of Margot Friedländer -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt Checked; a very admirable story. I recall doing a research project about Joseph Mandrowitz in middle school and his story always stuck with me. He was among the death marchers but held up very resiliently. Panini! • 🥪 00:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Musings on 15 May --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

all Verdi today: tenor Luigi Alva and the premiere OTD of his Requiem, see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ascension Day today, time for a service at a small church nearby and meeting friends. 300 years ago Bach performed a cantata for the occasion, with a rich use of brass and winds, and to the libretto of a woman. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reasons to look at Bach (and listen): it's a recent GA (not by me), he assumed the position of Thomaskantor OTD in 1723, he's up for PR, and several of his cantatas for GA, and his Easter Oratorio for FAC --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from AnnaPirhana (01:27, 19 May 2025)

Hello! I am trying to submit an entry and I'm not sure how to do it. The whole thing is still sitting in my sandbox. --AnnaPirhana (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @AnnaPirhana! It looks like at some point you moved it to a draft here. To submit the article for review, go to this draft and click the "Submit the draft for review" button at the top of the article.

It looks like your article has a couple of critical reviews so from a glance it looks like your article passes our notability criteria. However, your article will first need to cite its sources with inline citations. I suggest doing this before you submit your article for review. You can learn how to do that at Help:Referencing for beginners. Panini! • 🥪 17:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from 1teamx (19:35, 19 May 2025)

Hi Panini, I see that you're my assigned mentor for Women in Red.

I wanted to first get my profile set up. I see some other users have the logo in their list of interests/activities on Wikipedia. Could you direct me how to do that? Thank you! --1teamx (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @1teamx! Women in Red is dope. I'm not a mentor for Women in Red specifically but rather a mentor to a small portion of all new users. I am totally able to help you with any questions regarding general editing practices. When it comes to questions about the Women in Red project itself, you can ask those at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, where many users are active and happy to help.

You'll need to create your user page first. Click on your username above (in red, unrelated) and fill it out and decorate it however you'd like. The easiest way to do this is to directly copy what you like from others to yours, and mess with the coding to make it your own. I never outgrew doing that because the templates and scripting are confusing. Also, check out our Wikipedia:User page design guide. Have a fun browse, learn what user pages should be, steal some things you like.

The simplest way to declare you are part of Women in Red is to use their WP:Userbox by pasting {{User WikiProject Women in Red}} onto your page. Userboxes are a great way to showcases your interests and activity on Wikipedia, and once you find out there's like 10 billion of them you end up falling down a userbox rabbit hole. Other than that, if you see some cool imagery on other user's pages fell free to use them yourself!

Making a user page is the funnest part of Wikipedia. For you, it's all downhill from here.^[sarcasm]

If you'd like help on your user page (like if you have a good idea or want something from someone else's but can't quite figure out how it works), let me know and I can help you out. Let me know if this helps! Panini! • 🥪 04:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	To the contributions made in the Buying Wikipedia page! 22ManzanaBoy (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @22ManzanaBoy. I'm gonna stab this one specifically into my wall. No reason, it'd just look funny. Panini! • 🥪 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sadiowiki (07:25, 27 May 2025)

I recently submitted a draft article on Jeff Campbell (Apostle), and it was declined by ToadetteEdit due to concerns about notability and the lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I really appreciate the review, and I’m hoping to get clarification on how to improve the draft for resubmission.

The draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sadiowiki/sandbox

I’ve cited sources including La Voz, The Denver Post, Longmont Daily Times-Call, HuffPost, Westword, and award acknowledgments from the Bonfils-Stanton Foundation and Denver Arts & Venues. Some are in-depth features, while others cover public events or cultural contributions.

Could you advise whether any of these sources already meet notability criteria if formatted correctly with inline <ref> tags? And if not, what types of additional coverage should I be looking to include?

Any guidance on strengthening the article for acceptance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! --Sadiowiki (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Sadiowiki! Welcome to Wikipedia.

It seems like your article has not met the notability guidelines when it comes to WP:SIGCOV. This rule implies that all cited work discuss the subject of the article in direct and specific detail, rather than in passing mention or simple mentions in lists. Here's an example:

An article such as this one about Ben Rector discusses him in depth, offering timeline documentation and personal commentary.
An article such as this mentions that Rector played in this golf tournament, but only in the context of "here is a list of everyone playing at this event". Only his name is mentioned.

That's not to say that you can't use sources like the latter in your article--and you should, because they detail more about their beat-to-beat life moments--but sources like the former are the ones that establish detailed notability about a certain person. There isn't a strict guideline to this and the bar can shift from article to article, but one that typically passes our general notability guidelines are ones that have at least three of these juicy sources, that detail the person specifically, and in-depth, and don't leave major holes in their story once written out.

That's what I think is hindering your article from publishing. If this issue can be resolved, I can help you fix the article up to WP:MOS standards and it'd be good. But looking only what's here currently, it may be unlikely. But don't let that discourage you! Creating articles as a new user is often considered the most difficult task. But you've done a pretty dang good job with your article and you will certainly be a fantastic editor; I see you getting through the learning curve exponentially :). When my first ... I think it was 3 ... articles failed, I turned to an article that was already published that peaked my interest and worked very hard to bring it to good article status. Once I got comfortable with editing I took another crack at creating my own article and I nailed it.

ToadetteEdit did not ignore you on your talk page by the way; this is an automated template and they are expectantly not watching the page it goes to. I left them a message to give additional clarification on their decline reason (which is also semi-automated based on the reasoning I gave you). Panini! • 🥪 15:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Panini,

Thanks again for the clear feedback — I really appreciate you both taking the time.

I now better understand the importance of WP:SIGCOV and how the current citations fall short in demonstrating Jeff Campbell’s notability. I’ve reviewed the examples you gave, and I agree: passing mentions aren’t enough — the focus needs to be on in-depth, independent coverage.

Additionally, I’ve uploaded several primary newspaper clippings to Wikimedia Commons for review. These include in-depth coverage of Jeff Campbell (as a breakdancer and public figure) from:

- **La Voz** (1984)

- **The Denver Post** (1984)

- **Longmont Daily Times-Call** (1984)

Here are the files:

- [1](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Break_For_Summer_La_Voz_Newspaper_1984_2.jpg)

- [2](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Break_For_Summer_La_Voz_Newspaper_1984_3.jpg)

- [3](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Break_For_Summer_La_Voz_Newspaper_1984_4.jpg)

- [4](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jeff_Campbell_Breakdancing_Longmont_Daily_Times_1984.jpg)

If possible, could you review these and let me know if they help satisfy notability? I’ll gladly restructure and refine the article based on your guidance.

Thank you again — your support really means a lot as I work through the learning curve!

—Sadiowiki Sadiowiki (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadiowiki, so to answer your concern, it feels that the subject is not yet notable. I have looked at the linked sources and from all of them:

The two huffpost.com posts are bot valid; the first is made by a contributor and contributor articles often are not reliable. And the second leads to this source which is an interview and so is a primary source,
this does not mention(?) the subject, and
this provides a brief excrept of the biography of the subject without discussing anything that in detail. The last online source that I did not linked to is significant enough to establish notability.

I have not checked the offline sources so an analysis or a copy for evaluation would be helpful at best. Hope you understand this. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 15:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToadetteEdit,

you mentioned that one of the online sources might be sufficient to establish notability. Could you let me know which one that was? I’d love to build the article more effectively around it.

—Sadiowiki Sadiowiki (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from LAANKY (06:39, 30 May 2025)

Hey, how do I make my own page? I want to create my own article --LAANKY (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @LAANKY! The short answer is: you probably shouldn't. See this article on why an autobiography is both incredibly difficult and can get you into a lot of potential trouble. Panini! • 🥪 15:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Shaieer Munazil Javaid (12:56, 1 June 2025)

Hello! I am trying to create a new Wikipedia page about myself, Shaieer Munazil Javeed. I have written a draft including my biography, education, and my business (HAPEx.j). Can you please check if it meets the notability and formatting guidelines? Thank you! --Shaieer Munazil Javaid (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Shaieer Munazil Javaid! The short answer is: you probably shouldn't. See this article on why an autobiography is both incredibly difficult and can get you into a lot of potential trouble. Panini! • 🥪 15:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Suveergowda (05:36, 8 June 2025)

hi how to make my page available to all onthe internet if searched on the internet like google it should pop up --Suveergowda (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @Suveergowda! When an article on Wikipedia is published, it will take a while for it to properly index into Google and appear in search results. This can take upwards of 90 days to do, even. Panini! • 🥪 15:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing: New Horizons peer review

Hi Panini, seeing as you nominated this article for GAN, I have started a PR for ACNH in the hope that you, me and other interested editors could get that article to FA. Feel free to join! JuniperChill (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JuniperChill Hey there, I currently have no plans to get involved with this article further, especially because the GA itself was a headache, but if the overhaul starts getting huge traction I will happily help move the FAC along (and give you all the credit for it obviously. I'm not jumping in last minute and being like "ahh, yep, we did it!) Panini! • 🥪 15:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hey Panini. It's been a while. I have been working on a bunch of GA articles but wanna make on FA if I still I can. I was wondering if you think Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show has a chance of being nominated at all. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Shoot for the Stars. I'm not quite sure? But not for the usual reasons.

Just like how some articles are going to be WP:PERMASTUBs, there's an unspoken rule sometimes that an article can be a sort of PERMAGA. An article simply does not have enough information to adhere to the comprehensive standards of a featured article and could fail because of that. That's a thing I'm not really familiar with and I think you should ask someone more involved at FAC about it. Get a quote essentially. Panini! • 🥪 15:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sukbar Ali on The Grave (11:09, 15 June 2025)

GRAVE movie --Sukbar Ali (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Growth News #34

A quarterly update from the Growth team on our work to improve the new editor experience.

Mentoring new editors

In February, Mentorship was successfully rolled out to 100% of newcomers on English Wikipedia. Following this milestone, we collaborated with Spanish Wikipedia to expand Mentorship coverage to 70% of new accounts, with plans to reach 85% soon unless concerns are raised by mentors. (T394867)

“Add a Link” Task – Iteration and Experimentation

Our efforts to improve and scale the “Add a Link” structured task continued across multiple fronts:

Community Feedback & Model Improvements: We’ve responded to community concerns with targeted changes:
- Restricting access to newer accounts (T393688)
- Some links types were removed to align with recommendations written in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style (T390683)
- Allowing communities to limit “Add a Link” to newcomers (T393771)
- The model used to suggest the links was improved to ease its training (T388258)
English Wikipedia rollout and A/B test: We increased the rollout to 20% of newcomers, with analysis underway. Preliminary data suggests this feature makes new account holders more likely to complete an unreverted edit. (T386029, T382603)
Surfacing Structured Tasks: An experiment where we show “add a link” suggestions to newly registered users while they are reading an article is running on pilot wikis (French, Persian, Indonesian, Portuguese, Egyptian Arabic). Initial results are under analysis. (T386029)

Newcomer Engagement Features

“Get Started” notification: Engineering is in progress for a new notification (Echo/email) to encourage editing among newcomers with zero edits. Early research shows this type of nudge is effective. (T392256)
Confirmation email: We are exploring ways to simplify and improve the initial account confirmation email newly registered users receive. (T215665)

Community Configuration Enhancements

Communities can now manage which namespaces are eligible for Event Registration via Community Configuration. (T385341)

Annual Planning

The Wikimedia Foundation’s 2025–2026 Annual Plan is taking shape. The Growth and Editing teams will focus on the Contributor Experiences (WE1) objective, with a focus on increasing constructive edits by editors with fewer than 100 cumulative contributions.

Get Involved

We value your insights and ideas! If you would like to participate in a discussion, share feedback, or pilot new features, please reach out on the relevant Phabricator tasks or at our talk page, in any language.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Question from Kaylee3iRD (23:48, 20 June 2025)

Hello nice to meet you --Kaylee3iRD (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Kaylee3iRD what's up :) welcome to wikipedia Panini! • 🥪 00:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from NBalliet (13:50, 25 June 2025)

Hello,

I would like to add an information page for my business, Northeast Hearing Solutions. Can you tell me how to start?

~Nevin --NBalliet (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Creamsodaandberries (07:32, 26 June 2025)

is it necessary to add information that's known around the fanbase if you're writing on a page for a show??? (if you need the page i'm talking about, it's Hallo aus Berlin) --Creamsodaandberries (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ranchwife-COM (14:45, 26 June 2025)

i need to create a page for a new brand and website that i found --Ranchwife-COM (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2025 July newsletter

The third round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 June. This round was again competitive, with three contestants scoring more than 1,000 round points:

BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,314 round points, mostly from articles about athletes and politicians, including 20 good articles and 48 did you know articles
Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,197 round points, mostly from military history articles, including 9 featured topic articles, two featured articles, and four good articles
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles

Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]