This award is given in recognition to Bunnypranav for accumulating at least 350 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is awarded to Bunnypranav for accumulating more than 500 points during the June 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and sustained efforts in reducing the backlog and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process are sincerely appreciated. Thank you for your participation! --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)14:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teamwork!
The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you so much for your work on the drive, and thank you so much for your whopping 155 re-reviews!! You helped keep this drive flowing and this wouldn't have been possible without you, so thank you! Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk)15:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I just created my account an hour ago. I want to contribute to Wikipedia by making edits and creating aricles about films from my country the Philippines. I always use this website for searching of articles about movies to know more about the specific film but sometimes it is not available on Wikipedia but present to other sites, it would make easier and accessible for future viewers if I make the unavailable contents here as Wikipedia is more cohesive and coherent sites than others.
My question is, is it true that I can only make article if my account is 4 day old, Make atleast 10 minimum edits, and do you have tips for me as a new here.
@Vraeneix Welcome! If you're account is not yet 4 days and 10 edits old, then you cannot directly create articles in the mainspace (simply said, the part of the wiki most public will see). You can, however, still create them in draftspace, which is a place for incubation of newer articles.
I would advice you to have a look through Help:Your first article and the further links given in it. That is a really good place for you to start and learn about the policies with advice on writing articles. Hope this helps, and happy editing! :) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>14:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bunnypranav! Thanks for helping out at AfC :). Totally optional thing during the review process, many AfCers don't always take this step, but feel free to tag drafts like Draft:Aureus ERP for G11 if the draft content needs absolute WP:TNT to pass. Whole thing was unreferenced, with sections like "why should you choose Aureus" and their bulleted list of reasons followed. The only two links on the page were for 1: the Github, and 2: the framework it was built on. Your decline of the draft was totally correct, but I would've gone a step further and CSD'd it after declining it. (They ended up resubmitting the same thing with more promo content which is why I saw it end up back in the AfC queue.) Thanks for your good work! Utopes(talk / cont)05:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The see also section for the film, Jeepers Creepers: Reborn is a bit editorialized in so far as the see also content makes no back reference to jeepers creepers reborn. This movie may be quite bad. This movie may not be quite that bad. Referencing a see also section of worst movies that doesn’t list this movie as a bad movie is clutter without citation that does not contribute clarity to an article about this movie.
For my own purposes, I’ve checked for Metacritic scores and IMDB scores for worst movies of 2020s and unfortunately, this movie hasn’t been widely reviewed enough by critics to make those lists. Likewise, it only has 15 critic reviews on rotten tomatoes so it doesn’t yet qualify for the list of zero score films on rotten tomatoes.
I still think the mention is fine, and suitable to link to. Having a see also link does not mean the move is so bad, nor do I think it is editorializing. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>14:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have a question which pertains more to etiquette than editing exactly - is it appropriate to ping a user to ask for information on an edit they made? For context, I'm adding a section to an article's talk page, to seek clarification on a citation which doesn't actually seem to provide evidence for the claim, and I worried that it might be a faux-pas to ping the person who made the edit in question. Thanks for your guidance! --Tinybabyfishy (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bunnypranav! I have a question about how to move an article from my sandbox to the main Wikipedia. I am not part of the Hurston Wright Foundation nor the Zora Awards (the article I created) but I am a volunteer that works in nonprofit publishing and want to help raise the awareness of the rebranding of the Zora Awards for all authors of color. I am new to Wikipedia editing and page creation, any advice or direction you can give me would be so helpful. The fully written Zora Award entry for Wikipedia (with citations and links) is in my sandbox. Thanks so much for your help and guidance! --Tk42juan (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Tk42juan, apologies for the delayed response. I have done a quick skim of your article User:Tk42juan/sandbox, and have a couple points. Firstly, the language does not seem Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and sounds promotional in some places. Also, did you use ChatGPT or some other AI for writing some parts of the article? If yes, that is highly discouraged in Wikipedia, have a look at Wikipedia:Large language models for some reasons on why.
Due to my real life reasons, I unfortunately do not have the time to go through it in detail. Once you are done fixing the problems I said above, feel free to add {{submit}} at the top of the draft, and one of the Wikipedia:Articles for creation members will review your draft and give you some feedback on improving it. In the meantime, I say you have a look through Help:Your first article for some beginner advice. Hope this helps! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>10:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Signature contrast
Hi bunnypranav. I like your signature, but.. it doesn't meet the requirements for signature appearances. Your signature seems to have too little contrast, especially for the small font size. You can use a tool to check the contrast to determine if your signature meets the minimum contrast ratio of 4.5 (the draft new web accessibility guidelines are even more strict for small-font text). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice Femke, and apologies for not realizing that the colours are not appropriate until now. I'll change it in a couple hours once I'm on my PC. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>04:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bunnypranav. Per your request, your account has been granted "checkuser-temporary-account". You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to edit it in the next few weeks, but I do have some specific questions for you about citations.
1. How do I indicate that a book had editors and not authors when I enter it manually?
2. What is the difference between a publication date and a retrieved date?
Hey @LegacyWitness, and thank you for your contributions! Answering your questions, to include editors in the citations, you'll have to use the template {{cite book}}, which has fields for upto 9 editors. Secondly, the publication date is the date when the book/article/source was published to the world, in any website/offline. The retrieved date is the date the source retrieved and added in the article, used for logging when/if the website goes down or changes the content. Mostly used when Wayback Machine archives the sources using bots/other volunteers. It is generally automatically added in most cases. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU! The distinction between retrieved date and publication date makes so much sense to me now. Thank you for giving me the context.
Hello! Nice to work with you. Could you please take a look at my AfC submission now that it's fulfilled all the remaining issues with notability mentioned in the previous declination? Thank you :)
For context, the previous evaluator determined there was 1 source that qualified for notability in the revision he/she looked at, and since then 2-3 additional eligible ones have been added to fit this standard (once I paid attention to the requirements more fully) Asf132 (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update and notification, but unfortunately to IRL reasons, I am unable to review articles that much. Please wait for another reviewer who will get to it. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>12:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Avi The Banik (15:53, 4 September 2025)
Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia editing section and still finding out how things actually work. Any suggestions for first timers? Also, Since English isn't my native language, I can't write whole articles in English but I can edit here and there. I think I would have the most work in the translation section. But how can I find it? --Avi The Banik (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Avi The Banik, and welcome to Wikipedia! A quickstart guide to Wikipedia editing can be found at Help:Introduction. First click with Get started for the basic guide, then hop back to the original page for more detailed guides. Since you wish to do translation, have a look at Help:Translation and then Wikipedia:Translation on how to do so. If you wish to edit in your native language, that also might have a wiki for that particular language. Search your language in m:Wikimedia projects to see if it has it's own Wikipedia, or any other Wikimedia Sister projects. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>07:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]