Wasianpower

Jimmy

What did u mean by your revert about Jimmy's sincerity being unclear? I didn't understand it :) Stephanie921 (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I meant it as in, within the show it isn't 100% clear if Jimmy is being sincere or not when he says he was jealous about Chuck's affection for Howard and that he could've been nicer to him. A possible interpretation (which I am personally inclined to) is that he does genuinely feel this way on some level after what happened to Howard. Wasianpower (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow

	Yay!!
	Hello!, I want to award you this because you have created and contributed to so many articles on Wikipedia! Thanks. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for 1973 Nobel Peace Prize

On 11 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1973 Nobel Peace Prize, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize is the only Nobel Peace Prize ever to have been declined? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1973 Nobel Peace Prize. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1973 Nobel Peace Prize), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 24,958 views (1,039.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

recent additions

thanks for working on the Germany article.

have a wikipedia day,

Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Transgender people in Nazi Germany

On 10 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Transgender people in Nazi Germany, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in just one night, thousands of books on the experiences and medical care of transgender people in Nazi Germany were burned (pictured) for being "un-German"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender people in Nazi Germany. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Transgender people in Nazi Germany), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 12,314 views (1,026.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the great article expansion! - It's still the top story in Portal:Germany (and will stay until the next pictured one related to Germany comes up). My personal top story today is about a musician.

Precious

articles with power

Thank you for quality articles such as Transgender people in Nazi Germany, Elisabeth Friske, 1973 Nobel Peace Prize and Hold Me Tight (2021 film), for explaining edit summaries even for small edits such removing "speculative claim" and "wording to match new source", for staying in article space, - Maddie, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2931 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Wasianpower. Thank you for your work on Ronald Reagan and AIDS. Another editor, Broc, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Very nice page! Thank you for the great work :)

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

Broc (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Token of my appreciation

		The Original Barnstar
		Just read through your page on Ronald Reagan and AIDS and it was excellent. I added other edits to the page as soon as I was finished. I looked at some of your other articles and they are thorough, well written, and overall fantastic articles. Seems like I wasn't the only one that thought so either given the fact someone ALSO added a positive message here about that page specifically. Keep up the good work. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you!!! 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to second this recognition of your work here! I had read an article about Nancy's response to the crisis and this was a comprehensive an interesting piece on the topic! Reywas92^Talk 17:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thirding you with praise for your efforts in adding an important and (until recently) missing part of Wikipedia's coverage of POTUS40. BusterD (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Ronald Reagan and AIDS

On 19 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ronald Reagan and AIDS, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ronald Reagan did not publicly mention AIDS until 1985, after more than 5,000 people in the United States had died from it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ronald Reagan and AIDS. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ronald Reagan and AIDS), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow ... Incredible work, thank you so much, brilliant research. I was writing an article on his Potomac speech on AIDS last year before getting waylaid. No Swan So Fine (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Much thanks

I want to thank you so much for creating this magnificent article on Ronald Reagan and AIDS. I've been doing little bits of work for years on the main article concerning this key topic, but if we are being frank there is a pervading cult of personality around the subject of that article that creates stifling groupthink and severe lapses of WP:NPOV that makes it hard to work on that article. I commend you for working so hard to create this well-written and sourced article. Jaydenwithay (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I've experienced some of that myself, to be honest it's the main thing that makes me anxious about trying to nominate the article for GA status. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Wasianpower, 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 21:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Your NPP Review of Maddi Wilde

Hey there, Wasianpower! As part of the September 2024 NPP Backlog drive re-review process, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated an article you patrolled, Maddi Wilde, for deletion. The reason for this is that I was unable to find enough coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. No action is needed on your part, but feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Good luck on the rest of the drive and thanks for all you do! JTtheOG (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@JTtheOG: -- Appreciate the heads up! I've left a !vote on the AFD outlining my reasons for passing it. Best of luck on the drive to you as well! 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ronald Reagan and AIDS

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ronald Reagan and AIDS you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Wasianpower for accumulating at least 50 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for The New York Times Simulator

On 24 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The New York Times Simulator, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The New York Times Simulator was inspired by its creator's frustration with media coverage of the Israel–Hamas war? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The New York Times Simulator. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The New York Times Simulator), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 21,906 views (912.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 01:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of The New York Times Simulator for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The New York Times Simulator is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New York Times Simulator until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

asking your advice on procedure

Hi Wasianpower, I'm asking your advice on a discussion you participated in regarding deletion of the GlowCode page. I see that you're the only one of the 4 editors who participated in the discussion who was helpful in the past, and didn't have multiple controversies on their talk page. Here is the background: I created the GlowCode page in 2011. Very early on, the topic was improved for notability and other standards, and remained an active page for more than 12 years. There were a number of reliable source citations. But this September 25, the article was nominated for deletion on the grounds of notability. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GlowCode - Wikipedia). Within barely a week, the article was deleted Oct 2 by editor 181.197.42.215 who was very shortly later was blocked for a month for "(Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alon9393)" Question: since the GlowCode page is already deleted, under a seemingly inappropriate time frame and process, what is the process for reinstating the page? Thank you very much. esigcEsigc (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Esigc! Thank you for reaching out, I'd be happy to help. First up, just want to clarify a few things:

• The IP editor you mention who received a month sockpuppet ban was not the one who deleted the article, that is done by the administrator who closes the AFD (in this case User:OwenX). With a few exceptions, AFDs are closed and the deciding action performed exclusively by admins. That IP editor was just the last to !vote on the AFD.
• Neither of your pages is fully deleted, they've just been redirected to List of performance analysis tools, as you can see by clicking these links: Electric Software, Inc., GlowCode.
• The time frame and process for the AFD are fairly standard, though it's unfortunate that it was fast enough you didn't get a chance to participate in the discussions.

If you'd like to work to recreate these articles, I would start by reading WP:AFTERDELETE, it has some good steps you can take and more information to understand what happened. The main reason these two articles were deleted was because of notability concerns, if you are going to recreate them I'd start by finding sources to establish that they meet the general notability guideline (GNG). Editors at AFD worked to try to find sources that would indicate these articles met this standard but were unable to find anything, however you might have better luck! Keep in mind that to meet GNG you must have two sources which discuss the topic in depth, and are secondary and independent from its subject. If you're unsure if a source can help meet GNG, you can feel free to ask me here or drop a question over at WP:HELPDESK! Since neither article was fully deleted, you can also still see what they looked like pre-deletion by looking at the articles' histories, and use that as a basis for recreating them after you find sources to establish notability.

Before you do any of that however, you must declare your WP:Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest editing is generally discouraged, although not outright banned, but what *is* required is that at a minimum you must declare your conflict of interest. In your case it seems you have a connection to Electric Software; see WP:DISCLOSE for more information on how to do that!

I know how bad it must feel to see a page you worked hard on be deleted, and I'm very sorry for that and I hope it doesn't deter you from continuing to edit in the future! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wasianpower. Thank you for your detailed assistance. I will proceed step by step, and would like to start with the GlowCode article. I don't see how to put a connected contributer note on the GlowCode talk page, because I don't understand how to access its talk page since it was deleted. I have worked on GlowCode software. I am not a paid editor; I'm not being paid for contributions to Wikipedia. Please advise. Thanks again.Esigc (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If you click on a redirect link (like GlowCode), it take you to the redirected page but at the top there will be a message that say Redirected from .... If you click the link that it says it was redirected from, it will take you to the redirect page, which will have the talk page and history from the article. Here is a link which will take you to the same place that process would! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

1. I'm trying to add the COI, but I'm still confused as to how. I found the GlowCode Talk page. On it, should I "Click here to add a new topic" and then enter a topic which consists of my COI?

2. And then where would I enter the links I found to substantiate GlowCode notability?

Thanks again! Esigc (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

1. You should click "edit source" on the talk page and then add the template to the top.

2. I would start by going to the last revision before the page got blanked and copying it to your sandbox (User:Esigc/sandbox). From there you can add the sources as if the page were still up and get the page to the state you want it in. Once that's done, feel free to ping me here and I'd be happy to take a look, or you can do the same over at WP:HELPDESK! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wasianpower, I have revised the GlowCode topic in my sandbox. Please take a look User:Esigc/sandbox.

I'd appreciated any suggestions and advice on next steps.

Thank you again. Esigc (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Some quick notes:

• GlowCode is used by software developers to analyze and optimize two main aspects of their application: performance (speed) and resource use. needs a citation
• in a description of how a team used GlowCode's "automated instrumentation of code ... to quickly identify the major time and scale sensitive components..." quote should be attributed to whoever said it per MOS:QUOTE.
• Same with the quote in the next paragraph and several other subsequent paragraphs.
• GlowCode performance profiling is also discussed in books and journal articles such as "Writing Fast Programs" , "Traditional Techniques for Software Fault Localization., and "A Survey of Performance Analysis Tools for OpenMP and MPI . This sentence is not needed, notability is established through simply having the citations that meet a WP:NOTABILITY guideline. They don't need to be listed out or explicitly state that they are there to establish notability, just there somewhere in the article.
• It is while the profiled application runs that GlowCode shows the duration... -> "While the profiled application runs, GlowCode shows the duration...".
• Make sure citations always go directly after the last punctuation of the word they're citing. See MOS:PUNCTFOOT for more info. For example, blah blah blah. is incorrect, as is blah blah blah. . It should look like blah blah blah.

Regarding notability, here is a source review for the sources currently in the article:

Source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://glowcode.com/				✘ No
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4839624			Does not discuss GlowCode itself, only that it was used in the experiment	✘ No
https://class.ece.iastate.edu/cpre583/project_presentations/SLAM_report.pdf			Same as above	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=-ahwKkg-OfoC&dq=glowcode&pg=PA238#v=onepage&q=glowcode&f=false			Only one sentence giving a definition of the product.	✘ No
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119880929.ch2			? Can't find a freely accessible version	? Unknown
https://sciresol.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/IJST/Articles/2016/Issue-43/Article54.pdf				✔ Yes
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=case1291093142&disposition=inline		Master's thesis, considered unreliable unless it can be shown to have had scholarly influence.	~ It does discuss GlowCode somewhat, but it is generally not commentary and moreso just an outline of the features.	✘ No
https://www.softpedia.com/get/Programming/Other-Programming-Files/GlowCode.shtml		~ Despite the name, this is not a wiki, though the site itself seems pretty sketchy.		✘ No
https://drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/dr-dobbs-software-tools-newsletter/184405168?queryText=glowcode/		On first pass, this seemed like someone's personal blog, but it's apparently a CS magazine, so this counts.	~ This is borderline -- it reads like a product listing but the fact that they list features they like makes me inclined to say this probably counts as SigCov.	~ Partial
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2011/july/msdn-magazine-toolbox-tools-and-techniques-for-net-code-profiling			Only a brief mention with no commentary.	✘ No
https://drdobbs.com/new-products/184416501?queryText=glowcode/		See above	~ Borderline - discusses the product but reads like a product listing.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Based on this, I'm inclined to say this now meets GNG. If you could provide me with a link to access this source (or email me a copy), that would be helpful, as one more good GNG source would really help solidify things (since right now you have one solid GNG source and two borderline). Once you fix the above issues, ping me, and then I can give you advice on recreating the page! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, Wasianpower. I have followed your suggestions, rewritten sections to improve the writing, improved citations, and published the revised GlowCode page in my sandbox.

For these 2 sources:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4839624, and

https://class.ece.iastate.edu/cpre583/project_presentations/SLAM_report.pdf

I included more step-by-step details to show exactly how these 2 sources used GlowCode to profile their applications and isolate the significant "performance bottlenecks" in their code. I hope that now I have addressed your "Significant coverage?" concern in your very helpful Source Assessment Table, and that they

meet GNG.

I removed the source for which I haven't found the freely available version which I saw earlier.

I added a new source (Association for Computing Machinery's Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Cloud Computing Platforms) at the end.

Further advice appreciated. Thank you very much again.Esigc (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Esigc, I'm just now getting around to taking a look at this. I think it may be a good idea for you to go back to WP:GNG and WP:Notability and really take a look at and make sure you really understand them before we proceed. Notability does not have to do with how a source is used in an article. It is only related to how the source covers the topic of the article. So adding more text explaining how Glowcode was used in the source to the article does not improve notability.

Also, a source does not need to be freely accessible to be used. If you have a copy of it, and can verify its contents, that is okay, I was only asking to get a PDF copy emailed to me so that I could also verify it and see if it contributes to GNG. I'm very glad you found the source assessment table helpful :) I think you're very close on notability (I'd say it is borderline notable in its current state), and one more solid source would definitely get you there. If it's okay with you, I'm also going to go in and make a few copyedits to the article to improve its flow, please feel free to revert them if you don't like the changes I make. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, @Wasianpower.

1. I re-read the notability pages you recommended.

2. I appreciate your editing. Today I submitted some copyedits and clarifications.

3. I don't understand the following 2 rows in the source assessment table:

--"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4839624. Does not discuss GlowCode itself, only that it was used in the experiment

--https://class.ece.iastate.edu/cpre583/project_presentations/SLAM_report.pdf

Same as above"

The reason I don't understand is that both these sources discuss GlowCode itself by (a) describing in detail how they used GlowCode and (b) by explicitly reporting the results they obtained from GlowCode, as detailed in my Nov 5 edits of the article which were later removed.

It seems to me that these sources provide discussions of GlowCode itself. What do you think?

Thanks so much again. Esigc (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

For a source to provide WP:SIGCOV, in needs to discuss the topic in some sort of depth (more than a trivial mention). The SLAM source only mentions GlowCode once. The IEEE source mentions GlowCode a few times, but does not go into depth on it, and only mentions it alongside other similar profilers. For SIGCOV, we want something like this source, which has multiple paragraphs discussing GlowCode, and talks about features and benefits of it in comparison to other programs. For example, if the IEEE source had a section comparing and contrasting the different benefits of GlowCode and SpeedShop, that would likely constitute SIGCOV, but instead it just mentions that they were both used. Hope that makes sense! If you can find one more GNG source, I'd say you're definitely in the clear to recreate the article. Cheers and hope you're having a good weekend! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ronald Reagan and AIDS

The article Ronald Reagan and AIDS you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ronald Reagan and AIDS for comments about the article, and Talk:Ronald Reagan and AIDS/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)