User talk:Kavyansh.Singh

User page Talk Sandbox (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) Current nominations GA reviews Scripts

"Peaceful discussion"

Your GA nomination of Louis H. Bean

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Louis H. Bean 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 Legobot, on behalf of ExcellentWheatFarmer -- ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louis H. Bean

The article Louis H. Bean you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Louis H. Bean for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ExcellentWheatFarmer -- ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice stuff happening on January 1! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Draft Eisenhower movement

Congratulations, Kavyansh.Singh! The article you nominated, Draft Eisenhower movement, 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 The nomination discussion has been archived.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, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Just saw this while peeking at your Wikicup entry, congrats Kavyansh! Glad I was part of this article's process on its way to FA :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz – Thanks a lot! I really appreciate the review, and it helped in eventually reaching FA level. (When I nominated it for GA, I had no intention what-so-ever to make it FA!) Let me know if you ever require help in any of your GAN review/peer review. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Kavyansh.Singh. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Ladoga Skerries National Park

Nice work on the Ladoga Skerries National Park article. It's close to being long enough again. I wouldn't be against unwithdrawing my nomination if it gets to 1,500 characters or above and adding you as co-creator. SL93 (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@SL93 – We are now at 2229 characters! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Day of Infamy speech

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Day of Infamy speech 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 Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The Yankee FAC

Thanks again for your GAN review of The Yankee! I have just nominated it for FAC, so if there's anything from your GAN review that you think should be shared there, you are welcome to do so. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats great! Will take a look soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Day of Infamy speech

The article Day of Infamy speech you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Day of Infamy speech for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Will try to fix the issues and re-nominate. Thanks for letting me know about the post 9/11 sources issues (else I would have not known that)! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

If you look closely, Johnson is exactly looking at that icon.

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Again? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

GA

Thanks for the GA review. I'm happy to have another Iowa article that I started be GA status. I'm planning on trying to get my GA It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School to FA status, but it seems like a daunting task and I'm not sure what FAs to compare the topic to. I'm sure I will figure something out though. SL93 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Congrats on another GA! Indeed, writing FAs is a daunting task. I'll be happy to give it a read soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be great. Thanks for the offer. SL93 (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Just seeing if you could review the FA if you have time. The article has one reviewer and one support so far. I understand if you don't want to. but I'm just trying to be more proactive. SL93 (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, how could I not! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Ladoga Skerries National Park

On 10 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ladoga Skerries National Park, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ladoga Skerries National Park (pictured) in Russia has more than 350 species of various liverworts, hornworts and mosses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ladoga Skerries National Park. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ladoga Skerries National Park), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

January songs

in friendship

Thank you for another good one, and working in the preps! - Happy new year! - One of my pics was on the Main page (DYK) and even made the stats. - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. - As for Beethoven's Ninth, pipe is fine for the Main page, but in articles, we say "Verdi's Otello", not the composer in the pipe, which would be a bit easter-eggy as the composer might be expected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt – Happy New Year to you too! Working in preps is an honor for me, and I hope I have been useful. ALT1 hook frankly amazed me, thats why I was bit inclined towards selecting it. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! 2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt – You seem pretty busy, but that is just normal for you, isn't it :) Update on Sousa, I've just created List of operettas by John Philip Sousa, and guess what! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (march)

Hello! Your submission of Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (march) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dahn (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Smile :)

Hello Kavyansh.Singh, Pamzeis has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Well, that was something unexpected. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Kavyansh.Singh. I'm just posting to let you know that United States presidential elections in Utah – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for January 31. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 23:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for George H. W. Bush broccoli comments

On 17 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article George H. W. Bush broccoli comments, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that George H. W. Bush hated broccoli so much that he banned it from Air Force One? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George H. W. Bush broccoli comments. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, George H. W. Bush broccoli comments), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 10,882 views (906.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2022 – nice work!

Bruxton (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

That is nice! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Newcomer

Hello. I was wondering if you could review my review of a GA nomination. Since this is my first time, and your name is on the GA Mentors list, I was hoping you could look at it to see if it was acceptable and is a good review (it says I should do so here if you're wondering why i'm asking you this). If you do decide to review it, here it is. Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @I'ma editor2022 – I appreciate the request and thanks for volunteering to review a GA nomination. We quite always have a backlog and definitely appreciate the involvement of new editors. I see that you have not left any comments for the prose, but is maybe fine in this case, as the article is quite strong on prose. We usually look at only limited parts of MOS for GANs, but it is better to suggest any possible improvement, like:

• just six days after the first season's release — " 's " should be out of the link
• Principal photography also took place earlier that month around Marietta, Georgia on October 15 — there should be a MOS:GEOCOMMA after 'Georgia'; etc.

I agree with your concerns of sourcing. The "Episodes" section does need sourcing, but only for date and "Directed by"/"Written by", etc. The synopsis of each episode could be written neutrally without sources. I'd also say that "Cast and characters" is un-cited. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments I will be sure to include it in the review, but do you think it would be appropriate to put this on hold? Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@I'ma editor2022 – Well, the article has some issues, so it cannot and should not be "quick-passed". But, the issues are not that extensive that a "quick-fail" is warranted. So the best we can do is keep it "on hold" for 7 days or so. If progress is made, I'll be inclined to keep it on hold as long as required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your comments, and also for responding so quickly! Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	To show my appreciation for helping with my first review on a GA nomination! Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Boy Scouts of America (march) has been accepted

Boy Scouts of America (march), 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Rusalkii: It was nice trying AfC after a long time. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of United States presidential elections in New Mexico

Congratulations, Kavyansh.Singh! The list you nominated, United States presidential elections in New Mexico, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists 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 list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Promoting DYK hooks

I was wondering if you could promote Template:Did you know nominations/Price of the Modi Years. I'm not sure if I can promote it because I'm the own who fixed the article's issues and theleekycauldron made the final approval. Theleekycauldron might get to it soon, but I can't promote the old nominations Template:Did you know nominations/Vivienne Rohner and Template:Did you know nominations/Beate Ulbricht because I donated the QPQs. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@SL93, Done! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I forgot about Template:Did you know nominations/John William Kiser which neither I or theleekycauldron can promote. SL93 (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Done! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again. SL93 (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Opinion on length

I was wondering what your opinion as too short for FA status is. One Day at HorrorLand is an article that I brought to GA status and I expanded the article more to 5,967 characters. I have almost ran out of potential content to add based on the reliable sources. This book is one of only five original Goosebumps books to have significant coverage out of 62 of them. In relation to all Goosebumps books which total around 150 or so, there is only one extra book that has significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SL93: for FAs, there is no fixed length. All we need is comprehensiveness. If some 3,900 characters satisfy comprehensiveness, let it be a FA! For this particular article, it is not too short, and the only source I was able to find not used in the article is [1], which, I agree does not discuss the topic in great detail. So I'd believe that it is comprehensive. But, yeah, the article can take few improvements pre-FAC. But, overall, it good! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful response. It is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One Day at HorrorLand/archive1. SL93 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I nominated it at AfD to find consensus due to Czar. The article passed DYK and GA and is now being threatened at FA. SL93 (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel involved to participate in AfD, but I do want to note here that article being GA does not necessarily guarantee notability; months ago, a featured article was AfDed and subsequently merged. Not that I am saying One Day at HorrorLand should be merged, but I'll definitely let the community decide it one way or the other. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Three weeks stable article

During the last 3 weeks since review the James Madison article has been stable with some help edits made by other editors. You had mentioned at that time that you might be able to bring in some edits from sources available to you which I do not have available to me, in order to make the article more comprehensive and lead to a possible FA nomination. Any thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Will try to get to it in a few days, but currently, I have quite a few commitments both on and off Wikipedia. But, I am still interested in seeing President Madison as a FA! Meanwhile, you may request a copy-edit from WP:GOCE/REQ, if you wish so. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

GOCE backlog is nearly 6-8 weeks; are you sure it would not be better timing to do a GOCE listing after making the upgrade edits which you previously mentioned and summarized in my comment above? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My top priority(ies) currently on-Wikipedia is improving the articles: Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy and Darwin medal. Both are at FAR and FLR, which I am trying to get back to the featured level. After that being done, I'll get back to James Madison. It is upto you when to request GOCE. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

fyi

This might be of interest. valereee (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, valereee, the questions will help me in voting; I have no interaction with the user before. Is any of my question wrong/irrelevant ? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Ask yourself whether you really needed to get those questions answered in order to evaluate the candidate. Unless you really need to ask a question in order to evaluate a candidate, unless your decision to support or oppose needs that answer, every extra question is a bit of extra stress for that candidate, who is going through a 24/7 week of stress. Just think about that. And asking two? Why? You really need both those answers in order to decide whether to support or oppose? valereee (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@valereee, Yes, I need answer to the second question to decide whether to support/oppose the user, whom I have never known before this RfA. You can say that first question is not necessarily required, and that is why they are "Optional questions". If the candidate doesn't feel comfortable, or is too stressed out, they may not answer that. That would not be a reason for me to oppose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

valereee, and now, thoughtful responses to my questions did help me in deciding to support Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Modussiccandi. I understand your concern that RfAs are stressful for candidates; I had read that essay before. But honestly, I do not think that we should discourage someone from asking questions, except if their questions are inappropriate. Similar to how we do not force the candidate to answer optional questions. However, if the community thinks that my questions were irrelevant, I'll be happy to not ask them again in future RfAs. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to keep talking because I know you from DYK and respect you, and I'd like to try to dig into this with you. Please understand this as not a continued criticism of you but an attempt to come to some understanding. Okay, let's take your Q1. What reasonably possible answer would have answered a reasonable concern you had? Why were you concerned this editor didn't understand notability? And your Q2, similar question. This is an editor with a very impressive AfD record. Why were you concerned they might not understand closing of AfD? valereee (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Valereee, appreciate your request for clarification. Q1: Okay, I had minor doubt over the user's understanding of notability, as, going through there contributions, there are various instances where they have "change !vote" in deletion discussion. (Example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Especially in this case, where they change !vote from 'delete (nominator)' to 'merge'. To me, that is indirectly saying that 'the topic is not notable, but yes, it is fine to add its content to another article'. Nevertheless, I though asking some clarification would not harm. More importantly, Q2: Yes, the editor has an impressive AfD record, but per this, they have not closed any AfD discussions, when non-admins can close uncontroversial discussions. I do think we can agree that "!voting in AfD" and "closing AfD" are two very separate things. Because this editor, which a very impressive AfD record, themselves admit, and I quote: "[...] I would not have the guts to attempt such a close any time soon" (Source). Helping with AfD as an admin simply means to me that they will close the discussion, and I do feel it is important to ask how will they do so.

Let me add that I do not want RfA candidates to be perfect; no one if perfect. I am not looking for them to have long list of AfD closing record, but in this case, we simply have nothing to see their judgement in that area. Even if, like all of us, they have a few issues with few discussion, it does not matter more than their ability to learn. Modussiccandi is an excellent candidate, and I do hope they'l make a great admin. As to your original concern about unnecessary/irrelevant questions at RfA, I did not think of these questions just for the sake of asking. I honestly thought that it will help me, as well as others. I am sorry that you did not thought that way, but I do appreciate you approaching me. Thoughts? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid we're not going to agree that changing !votes when new evidence is brought in is in any way a problem. I don't think it's just my opinion that it's a definite good thing that someone is open to changing their !vote at AfD or any other discussion, and that they're paying attention to a discussion they've already !voted in. Too many people do the opposite -- drop a !vote and never circle back to see if anything has changed. Or refuse to change their !vote. I've pinged people back to AfDs before when there was new evidence, and some don't even bother to acknowledge the ping.

Nor are we going to agree on the idea that moving from delete to merge is somehow evidence of not understanding notability. The fact something isn't notable for its own article doesn't in any way mean the content isn't perfectly suitable to be included in some other article. And as has been discussed in the general section, many RfA !voters would actively disapprove of a candidate who had done more than a few closes at AfD.

But aight, if you felt like you really needed those questions in order to come up with a support or oppose, it's fine. Bringing in the diffs that you were concerned about is always a better choice, so for future, you might at minimum consider that. valereee (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@valereee, Lets agree to disagree, shall we! If we look only at the positive side, then yes, it is good that someone cares to follow the deletion discussion, and change their vote when something new is brought up. That does show that they are willing to accept other's point of view, and accept their own mistakes. We agree on that. But I do think that if an article can be merged, it is better to open a talk page discussion for the same, than nominating it for AfD. And if I understand that discussion correctly, people say that closing AfDs should not be a requirement. I can't see anyone objecting a RfA just because the candidate has closed AfD discussions. Regardless, I do appreciate your willingness to discuss. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Deleting Articles

Hello Kavyansh.Singh

You have recently asked for the removal of my article because the public figure was not well know. However Fred der Saftige is famous in both Switzerland and Liechtenstein among teenagers who listen to hyper pop. So unless you fit the demographic yes, you will not know who Fred der Saftige is but that is like saying Ronald Regan is not a famous figure because I don't know anything about US politics or presidents. So I think you should rethink your decision to remove the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fondblors (talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Fondblors: There are a few things to note:

• I considered the draft (Draft:Fred der Safitge) " promote or publicise an entity, person, [...]" because it does not has any reliable sources supporting the article. It is a biography of living person, not yet shown to be notable. Even if he is popular in certain region among certain age-group, unfortunate, the subject does not has coverage in secondary reliable sources (See WP:RS) Spotify, Saftig, etc. are not reliable sources. We will need reliable sources to assert notability.
• I see that you have marked File:Fred der Saftige.jpg as your "Own work". Since that is a selfie, I'll assume that you are the subject himself, that is, you are writing an article on yourself. Per Wikipedia:Autobiography, "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged".
• Me knowing or not knowing the subject has nothing to do with its notability. I know many, many people who are not notable per Wikipedia's standard.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Skinny Hightower

Hello Kavyansh.Singh, I respect your work as well as your work ethic and would be honored if you would review the article for jazz pianist Skinny Hightower. Thank you for your time. WikiJazzHub (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @WikiJazzHub, thanks for the compliments and your work on the article. Sooner of later, some volunteer would surely take a look. For the future, please make sure that your request to other users is neutrally worded; few other editors might consider this WP:Canvassing. Thanks for approaching, though! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Will definitely keep this in mind in the future. Regards WikiJazzHub (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much

I was lost, and running around messaging others. But you fixed my jumbled DYK, thanks. Bruxton (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton, Oh sure, I'm always happy to help! Just a few notes: when you link any text, you should not use wiki-links or tags in the piped text. For example, Source: [https://www.example.org/did_you_know "Piped source text containing [[wikilinks]] and [<nowiki>[</ nowiki>tags]]"] will almost certainly break the template. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

TFL notification – February 2022

Hi, Kavyansh.Singh. I'm just posting to let you know that List of marches by John Philip Sousa – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 21. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Well, I had requested it to appear on the main page on July 4, see Wikipedia:Today's featured list/Submissions#List of marches by John Philip Sousa. It would be appreciated if it can be held off till that date. Else, I trust your judgement. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I forgot that the list was already at TFLS. I've taken the liberty of pulling it with the aim of running it on July 4. Thanks for reminding me about your request. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK

Your special occasion hook is now in prep 6 for February 8. It's nice seeing an audio file be used. SL93 (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed; Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (march)

On 5 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (march), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Nobles of the Mystic Shrine" was first conducted with a band of around 6,200 members, the largest band John Philip Sousa ever conducted? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (march). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (march)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

February songs

frozen

cute, thank you! - tymy joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! One more Sousa march below!!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

thank you, - that's great! - Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Boy Scouts of America (march)

On 8 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boy Scouts of America (march), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Philip Sousa composed a march for the Boy Scouts of America (audio featured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boy Scouts of America (march). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Boy Scouts of America (march)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

full disclosure, I did a couple assignments with this one on loop in the background... it is, as the kids these days say (i think?), "a straight-up banger" :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Well, there you go, Sousa deserves the credit! Its nice to see the current main page. Sousa's march on Boy Scouts of America on one side; William D. Boyce, who established the Boy Scouts on another side! Sorry for my limited presence on DYK, am slightly busy off Wikipedia. When on Wikipedia, Darwin Medal and Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy takes most of my time. If time permits, will try to get to your peer review soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for input on a featured article candidacy

Greetings, I have nominated Lake Estancia for a featured article nomination. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. The instructions for the review process are here. Thanks in advance for any comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

How can one decline this generous offer by someone who has helped me in all my FACs. Would be glad to leave comments soon! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Well, there we go! Thanks! Best thing about reviewing FACs is that, currently, we have a large group of diverse topics. Lot of excellent articles for review to choose from! (However, upon another look, there seems to be everything except politics). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

True, although we have had several earlier in the year - Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2022. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

2nd Opinion needed on GA Nomination Robert W. Brady

Hello,

If you're not too busy, I request need help a second opinion on GA nomination Robert W. Brady (if so, you aren't obligated to). To be honest, i'm not sure my reasons for a second opinion is valid, but I request help nonetheless. Here is the GA review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'ma editor2022 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, why not! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Kavyansh.Singh. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Meena Kumari

Hello. Would you like to review Meena Kumari? Thank you. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nicholas Michael Halim: Sure, why not. Also, if you wish to do a review in return, I'll appreciate a FLC review for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of operettas by John Philip Sousa/archive1. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for List of operettas by John Philip Sousa

On 26 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of operettas by John Philip Sousa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that El Capitan, an operetta composed by John Philip Sousa, was later described as likely to become "the most enduring American comic opera of the nineteenth century"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of operettas by John Philip Sousa. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of operettas by John Philip Sousa), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

TFL notification – March 2022

Hi, Kavyansh.Singh. I'm just posting to let you know that Darwin Medal – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 14. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. 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.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The Reviewer Barnstar

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		Hey, this is for your review work. Easy to follow and you do it in a way that isn't overwhelming (my interaction with you over at WP:FLC World Food Prize and Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru/GA1). You also came fifth in WikiCup 2022, a newsletter notification just now. Congratulations. DTM (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

While I am yet to reply to the Nehru one, and the editor involved hasn't addressed your comments as far as I can tell, the points you've raised and your comment have given me some motivation with respect to the review. :) DTM (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank a lot for the kind words, DTM; I am glad my review was of some help! And I am fifth in just the first round of a year-long cup! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ike for President (advertisement)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ike for President (advertisement) 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 Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi! I was just wondering if you'd ever thought of giving adminship a shot. Not that I'm looking to nominate you (my nom would genuinely nuke an RfA) but think you'd have a really good shot so I'd like to hear your opinions on it.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @A. C. Santacruz for the kind words; you made my day!! I honestly feel that every user has only one serious chance at RfA in 2-3 years. If one's RfA fails, second RfA within span of 1 year would most likely again be unsuccessful. I'd like to save my first chance for later ... I currently am happy reviewing and improving articles. For a serious RfA, I do need much more involvement in AfD and CSD. So, while I'd like to one day be an admin, I am not planning to run anytime soon. Rest, I never thought anyone would consider me for adminship, so I'm pretty happy!

As a side note, I'd like to thank you again for you GA review of Draft Eisenhower movement. Especially, for introducing me to File:1952 Eisenhower Political Ad - I Like Ike - Presidential Campaign Ad.webm. That ad will soon be on the main page, and I just created Ike for President (advertisement)!! I hope everything is fine on your end ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, with a 93% match AfD voting record AfD might be less of a concern than you think. Of course, I'm not an experienced RfA nominator so you'd get better feedback at ORCP. In any case, if you're happy with how you're contributing to Wikipedia there's no need for you to run urgently.

It's great to hear you drove the Draft Eisenhower article so far, it's really cool to see you're getting a TFA! I'm glad my scavenging through Commons helped :) The ad article is looking nice. I kind of expect it being used in the future in classroom settings to teach media literacy (my highschool did so with campaign ads), which is always interesting. I myself am managing, the invasion of Ukraine kind of threw a wrench into a lot of stuff in my irl life so I'm doing what I can to float on. Hope you've had a nice Carnival week, if you celebrate. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to avoid reviewing topics you are unfamiliar with

Hello, Kavyansh.Singh. Thanks for reviewing articles! I noticed you seem unprepared to conduct reviews for topics that you are unfamiliar with. If you are interested in reviewing articles in unfamiliar topics, the proper procedure is to read example Featured Articles or Good Articles in the same topic area. (For example, if you want to review a sports biography and are unfamiliar with sports, you should first read several sport biography FAs before conducting a review of sport biography FA candidate. That way, you would know what a proper sports biography FA would look like.) In particular, I noticed in your review of Daisy Pearce that you stated you "know almost nothing about sports" and yet you left highly-critical comments after spending only 19 minutes to conduct the review, before ultimately suggesting the nomination be withdrawn. If you had looked at some example FAs in the same subject area, you would have already known that the sources used in the article are the correct types of sources that should be used in the article. We always need more reviewers, but reviews where the reviewer is not willing to put in sufficient effort are not particularly helpful. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sportsfan77777, thanks you your input. I have reviewed many article/list at FLC, and GAN, and few at FAC, outside my expertise. I feel it is very important for every nomination to have at-least one non-expert review. If the article is featured, there would be many people reading it, and a good number of people would be like me. I admitted my non expertise in the review, I even wrote that I have not read the entire article. My comments were not based on any particular technical issues which only experts can give. The criteria is same for every article: "high quality reliable sources". My comments were not critical, but something anyone normal reviewer can give. I felt, and still feel that the article does not meet those high standard of sourcing. I have put my efforts in various review I have conducted over the time, and am willing to do here as well. I asked the few sourcing question, but did not find any reason (and still haven't found out) why, say 'www.womens.afl', 'www.changehergame.com', 'afl.com.au', 'The Footy Almanac', or 'Facbeook' (in this case not used for direct quotations), are high-quality reliable sources. That is why I suggested to withdraw. I know there are many reviewers who would give much better review, and that is primarily why I did not oppose yet. I am happy that there are other reviewers disagreeing with me, which should be a normal part of every healthy discussion. But I still didn't understand why you called my review "blatantly sexist" and requested it to be "disregarded", when, if-fact, it was based on FA criteria. Thanks for approaching, though! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

You are not going to get a "healthy discussion" if you suggest withdrawal from the beginning. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between a non-expert review and being ignorant on purpose. It's your responsibility to try to figure out what would be good sources to use. Not having expertise on the subject doesn't prevent you from figuring out what would be a good source. It's not the nominator's job to explain it to you if you haven't made an effort yourself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: I disagree that reviewers need to provide better sources to claim that the sources used in the article are not WP:HQRS. Reviewers needs to evaluate the article based on FA criteria, and then judge whether the article meets it or not. I don't think I have been ignorant. Had I been that, I would not have replied to nominator's comments. I see that another reviewer has provided some sources not used in the article. Since you say that, I'll also add on the FAC page few sources which are not present in the article. But I am glad we both can agree that even non-experts can figure out whether a source is good or not; because that is exactly what I did. I viewed the sources, did not find them to be WP:HQRS, and suggested to withdraw. As to why I did it in the immediate beginning: because I got chance to review the article in the immediate beginning! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you did try to figure out if the sources were good or not, and you did a poor job, probably because you did not put in enough effort. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

And if reviewers do have criticism of the sources for not being WP:HQRS, they do often ask the nominators why other sources that are available weren't used. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: My apologies if you feel I had made any error while evaluating sources. As for your second point, I did. I asked "Can you elaborate as to how did you find sources for the article", and again "Are there no books/academic work about her life?". Steelkamp had mentioned few sources not used in the article. Per your request, even I have added list few sources which I feel should have been used. Again, I'm sorry if you think I did a "poor job". Thanks for letting me know! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ike for President (advertisement)

The article Ike for President (advertisement) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ike for President (advertisement) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ike for President (advertisement)

The article Ike for President (advertisement) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ike for President (advertisement) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Theleekycauldron and User:Gog the Mild submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

User|Kavyansh.Singh has made almost 10,000 edits. 13 featured lists, 11 good articles, 19 DYK nominations, an A-class article, a featured picture, and 3 featured articles give them more decorations than a four-star general. Their first FA, Daisy, was a thing of beauty. They are greatly interested in American politics and their efforts to cover the history of U.S. presidents, presidential candidates, presidential elections, and other aspects of national politics have been absolutely outstanding and super engaging. In addition, Kavyansh.Singh has been active in the field of DYK with 14 Featured while helping to build prep sets and raise flags at WT:DYK when nominations don't look quite right. Kavyansh.Singh is personable, enjoyable to work with, and remarkably sane, and richly deserves being an Editor of the Week!

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 16:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)