Jump to content

User talk:Onel5969/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55→Archive 60

Archive 41: April 2018

Kingdom of Greece

You appear to be changing links from Kingdom of Greece to Kingdom of Greece (Glücksburg) - as this redirects back to Kingdom of Greece it provides no benefit to the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi MilborneOne -Already left a comment on the talk page. The page had already been split, which had been reviewed by another editor. Hence, I began to fix the over 1000 dabs created by the split. Another editor has since reverted the split. If you had checked out the history of the page you might have seen that. Onel5969 TT me 14:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I could see that the split was contested and the discussion was still open, not my area so I will leave it to others to sort out. MilborneOne (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Me too. When I saw the split had been reviewed by an editor with quite a bit of experience, and not having any expertise in this area, I felt it was probably a pretty safe move. Oh well. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 15:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Better Call Saul (season 3)

Hey there! Is it okay if you delete the current redirect for the third season so I can move the finished draft into the mainspace. The Optimistic One (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Elmidae. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Marfield Prize, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Just sort of want to know reason we can not delete the distinguish tag to other town at top of page...

on the Prescott Valley web page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Valley,_Arizona there is a Not to be confused with Prescott, AZ. near the top of the page. yet on Prescott's, there is not one that directs to not be confused with Prescott Valley, AZ.

although I took it off, you unedited it to remain in place, so...

I'm figuring it's because, even though Prescott Valley has a higher population, Prescott has been around A LOT longer and might be more well-known, since it was a capitol of the state a Long time ago before the capitol moved to Phoenix. So basically inquiring, just to know the answer for future changes. -thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hldahms (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hldahms - First, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages (either article or other users') with the 4 tildes (~~~~). Second, you hit the nail on the head. Even though PV has a larger population, Prescott is much older and more well known. Furthermore, it's been a long standing note on the page. Anytime something like that has lasted for a long time, it's a good idea to start a discussion on the article's talk page to see if anyone objects to it being removed. Personally, I'm neutral about it, and have simply reverted for procedural reasons. Be aware, on a page with as little activity as PV, the discussion might take a couple of months. Onel5969 TT me 00:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Resilience in art

Hello, In response to your comment on Resilience in art I would like to clarify that it is not original research. Resilience is a concept in full development that applies to different fields and in art too. Resilience in art is discussed in the various international congresses : Resilience in the World of the Alive 2016 in Marseille, France, Arts developement UK, and will be featured in the 4th World Congress on Resilience in June 2018 in Marseille, France. Best regards.AlexArago (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi AlexArago - Original research, on WP, is not what you are indicating above. OR means that information in an article is uncited or synthesized (which could also be referred to as WP:SYNTH), and needs to be sourced properly. Large sections of that article are unsourced, hence seemingly OR. Onel5969 TT me 12:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969 TT me

Thanks.AlexArago (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Double (disambiguation)

Beware that DisamAssist can sometimes create incorrect links like this one. (I've removed that one altogether per MOS:NOTSEEALSO.) A similar gotcha, which you've probably already noticed, is that DisamAssist can create unwanted piped links on dab pages and in redirects. Certes (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Certes - Thanks. No, I was unaware of that glitch. I was aware of the dab page and redirect issues. Onel5969 TT me 12:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer's Platinum Star

The New Page Reviewer's Platinum Award

For 10,000 reviews in a single year. While your current count is a little below that, it was above 10,000 for most of last year, and this award has just recently created and you definitely deserve it. Cheers and thank you very much, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Insertcleverphrasehere - wouldn't even know where to go to look up my count, simply try to help out when something gets backlogged. You're right, I have slacked off recently, with the backlog having been reduced by almost 18,000 since when I got interested. But since it's slowly creeping up, guess I'll roll up my sleeves again. Onel5969 TT me 21:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Haha, I didn't mean to imply that you were a slacker, far from it! There is this stats page that gets updated by a bot twice daily (the year stats are at the bottom). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Paiute

Hello. Regarding this edit, the Paiute page is formatted as an article, not as a disambiguation page; as you well know, disambig pages should not contain references. Further, if it is converted into a disambiguation page, we would lose the information about the historical (albeit inaccurate) usage of the name. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi R'n'B - Agree 100% with the references, they should be removed. However, I've been going through the pages, and this clearly needs to be a dab, as there definitely seems to be a preponderance of difference between Northern and Southern. We can move the historical usage of the name into both articles, and cite the dab page in the edit so that the provenance is kept. Thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 13:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Daryle Lamont Jenkins

What is needed as an indication of notability? I had thought that the links I provided is what was needed. DCKaba (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. Simply because the organization he founded has limited notability, does not mean that the founder is notable. There must be several references from independent, reliable sources which go in-depth about Jenkins to show that he is notable. These can't be trivial mentions, nor discussions about the organization, but be about him specifically. The Wired source is an excellent example. The rest are either trivial mentions of him, or from dubious sources. If you can find another 2 like the Wired article from reliable sources, that would indicate notability. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 11:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that. In addition to the Wired article, I can add articles specifically about him from the Los Angeles Times, Daily Beast, Slate Magazine and Vox. I thought I had before. Sorry. DCKaba (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

re:The Battle for Marjah

I think Battle of Marjah/The Battle in Marjah/The Marjah Battle shuold Redirect to Operation Moshtarak, but "The Battle for Marjah" not have same meaning in english, like"fight for" and "fight in".

maybe you are right because english is not my mother tongue，but you shuold move this article to The Battle for Marjah (flim),then edit the Redirect page. not to ignore @Wdr1: et al's contributions.--Htmlzycq (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The guy who creates this article is not me，I just pass by.--Htmlzycq (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

thank you, and my spell "flim" is wrong--Htmlzycq (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

re: Trust Me Baby / In Dreams redirect

Is there already not evidence of notability? The article is for an up and coming recording artist that's signed to subdivision of XL Recordings. The single in question premiered on Zane Lowe's Beats 1 radio show which is internationally broadcast and was co-produced by a prominent Los Angeles producer Cole M. Greif-Neill. I've provided info to add insights into the songs creation and credits. I believe that's pretty noteworthy and not justifiable for a redirect. I don't appreciate my work being disregarded trying to a artist's page. shalom

Shalom... please read the guidelines for WP:NSONG. This does not qualify. Onel5969 TT me 02:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Tim Bagshaw

Hi, I believe he passes WP:NMUSIC but need at least 3 days to find and add references. Redirecting without discussion is edit warring so take it to AFD instead at least there people will actually search for sources instead of quickly redirecting without trying to improve it, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please understand what you are talking about. Redirecting is not edit warring... your actions on the other hand might be construed as such. Don't mark it reviewed until it sourced properly. I have no intention of taking it to AfD, since it most likely doesn't belong there. But if sourcing can't be provided, it should be a redirect. Onel5969 TT me 13:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The first redirect was a bold move which I contested so instead of BRD you reverted it, that means you are edit warring, not me Atlantic306 (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I redirected the page once. You really should understand stuff you make false accusations about. Onel5969 TT me 13:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I meant the initial redirect by Reddogsix was a bold edit which I contested. Anyway, a quick search didn't find any indepth sources and have a big backlog at the moment so have restored the redirect until I find at least 2, prefereably 3 or 4 good indepth sources, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

On club soda

Hi, I see you undid my creation of the article on club soda. I have turned it back into an article because the subject, while covered in the article on Carbonated water, is independently notable. Would you like to discuss this? A person searching on the term "club soda" and being taken to the existing article on "carbonated water" is told nothing about the chemical makeup of club soda nor its uses (because the article on carbonated water treats all such waters as the same, which they are not, see the references I included in the club soda article) nor how it is different from mere water with added carbonation (see here). Or at least this is how I see it. A loose noose (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, someone looking at the carbonated water article is given the generic makeup of club soda. Feel free to expand there. There is no need for a separate article. In fact, sometimes, as in this instance, a separate article actually does a disservice to folks researching the topic, as it limits the scope. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 03:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Maharashtra Forest Department

I added some references to Maharashtra Forest Department. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mota Group,Inc.

We will add further references. To that end, please cite the specific areas of the article that appear to be promotional, so I can provide the link to the wording in the reference where it came from. User:mtjoe —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Iron Man#Proposed merge with Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Iron Man#Proposed merge with Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe). I see you marked Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) as reviewed, if you have any comments then please feel free to bring them up on the merger discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!)

Already did Emir of Wikipedia - Thanks for the heads up. I marked it as reviewed, since if the consensus is not to merge, the article can stand alone, and if it is merged, the redirect will suffice. Onel5969 TT me 21:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The Unvanquished (film, 1945)

I got your point, and I probably know the reason. On IMDB the film is listed under a different title, The Taras Family, which seems to be the editor's mistake (after all, IMDB is like Wikipedia), who confused it with the original book's title. The film is also listed on the page of the Venice film festival (1946). Italian poster on the film's page says 'Gli Indomiti', which means The Unvanquished. I really doubt if the film was ever demonstrated in English. Dmitri Lytov (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dmitri Lytov - If you have independent reliable sources for the assertions made in the article, would definitely be notable. Please note that imdb is not considered a reliable source. Especially the assertation about it being the first film to depict the Holocaust. That alone is worth it having its own article, but where did you find that fact? Onel5969 TT me 22:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969, we probably need first to define what exactly should be confirmed by independent sources. If you can list your requests, I can see what I can provide. In the meantime, however, I would strongly disagree with the deletion of the page, as for me it looks like contesting the very existence of the film (which does not make sense, you can find and watch it) rather then statements in the article. I cannot understand your reasons of applying such a strong measure instead of inserting templates requesting corroboration of statements.
With regard to the list of feature and documentary films about the Holocaust, Wikipedia maintains a respective list in various languages, and so far the Soviet one (1945) is the earliest one on it; if anyone finds an earlier film, then the list will be updated respectively.
My reason is simple. Please read WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Neither of which this article currently abides by. Don't get me wrong, I think the film might very well be notable, but it must be shown by reliable sourcing. The page was not deleted, simply redirected to the Director's article, which is the common practice when the film itself does not meet notability criteria. On WP, any uncited assertion may be deleted at any time. So, for example, you make the assertion about the holocaust, that needs a citation. If you made an assertion about the release date, that needs a citation... etc. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 02:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Otello Corporation

Hi, can you tell me why my edit was undone here? The companies are different are separate entities and I had updated both artices to remove confusion and fix WP:COAT and Otello definitely fits WP:CORP given its history and acquisitions. I had also referenced everything clearly. Making it a redirect breaks the article Opera Software as well. Gotitbro (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Re:Proposed deletion of Poetic books

Hi Onel5969. I've always thought we would need some pages on the divisions of the Old Testament because structurally they vary somewhat from the Tanakh while being quite well marked categories within Christianity. I’d wondered a bit what precisely was meant by "historical books", "poetical books" and "prophetical books" and it's not been very clear from Wikipedia as up to now you’ve had to piece it together from articles on the Hebrew Scriptures. Actually the "poetical books" are strictly the Psalms and the Song of Songs, while the "sapiential books" are Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, or either term can refer instead to all five, but I think it's worthwhile all this should be noted down as it's quite pertinent for study/criticism, though it's true it’s hardly yet a very finished page. You can Google the terms and there'll be a fair few pages. I might change the tag to unreferenced stub, but do you have any other questions? Gherkinmad (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, without a single valid reference, it's a definite possibility for deletion. And in its current form, it would be deleted as per WP:DICDEF. If it gets fleshed out, with reliable, independent sourcing by all means have a go at it. Onel5969 TT me 22:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Kudpung. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Fort of São Lourenço do Bugio, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung - And the reason was? Onel5969 TT me 22:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, it was a misclick and I reverted myself immediately. The page is patrolled. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
No worries, Kudpung - Thought you might have picked up on something I missed. Onel5969 TT me 23:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Changes only when useful, tools only when careful II

That did not answer or address the problem raised. You state "changing back to non-specific dab is even less helpful". Talipes gives the reader the ability to note and look up various possible foot deformities. Pes (anatomy) states he had a foot. Do you *really* think asserting he had feet is more explanatory than confusing?

The point of Wikipedia is not excellence of editing, but excellence of the resulting text. When the result of an edit is worse than what was there previously, don't do that edit.

And if you are stuck on the "non-specific dab" thing, then you know how to fix that - make a more specific dab. You may wish to refer to Talipes history and change to PES, noting that original unfortunate change of redirect from clubfoot to the indirect PES#Pes (anatomy). Shenme (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

And since when is being more specific, rather than pointing to a vague dab page a better result. If you truly practiced what you preached, and you knew that the article's subject had a clubfoot, why would you purposely not use the correct term in the paragraph. That truly is the height of an unhelpful edit. If you disagreed with my edit, which you obviously did, why would you not make the correction to the actual correct target? Instead you deliberately chose not to improve the article. So don't post on my page again. Your actions make it clear that you are not here to help the encyclopedia. Onel5969 TT me 19:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hi. I wanted to know what was the issue for flagging the content I wrote for Pratibha Tiwari. It was original content with relevant links and citations. Could you please tell me why it doesn't meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia? Sidd13 (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sidd13 - Thanks for the baklava (even though it's not really my thing ). The article has now been moved into draftspace so that you can work on it. Right now, they have had a single notable role, therefore they don't pass WP:NACTOR, which is why I redirected in the first place. Barkeep49 has, in my opinion, rightly moved to draftspace, since the current version is undersourced and therefore doesn't show that they pass WP:GNG. Please read the guidelines on WP:GNG and WP:RS (for guidance on reliable sourcing). Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 22:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Alan Aisenberg

Hey, I don't mean to be a brat but I've had this draft waiting for over 8 weeks and no reviewer's even left a comment on it. You've had a look at some of my contributions before so that's why I approached you. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 20:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Davykamanzi - Done. Although, if he hadn't won the Emmy, he probably wouldn't qualify under WP:NACTOR. His only notable role is in Orange is the New Black. Regardless, nice job. And you're not being a brat, AfC has a huge backlog, and sometimes it can take a long time. This actually should have been approved (imho) a while ago, since the Emmy makes it pretty much an easy decision. Onel5969 TT me 21:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@Onel5969: Thanks for taking the time to review it. I know editors aren't meant to approach reviewers and ask them to review drafts so that's why I felt a bit bad asking you to do it. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 08:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Dab fixes

Thank you for all your help in fixing the wikilinks to disambiguation pages. I'm very sad to see that you've been put in a position where you feel unable to continue. We all make mistakes, but overall you've consistently made great improvements to Wikipedia. I hope you'll be able to rejoin us when the time is right, but I'll understand if you feel that the project no longer deserves your support. We'll miss you. Certes (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Certes - Thanks for the kind words, and yes we do all make mistakes. Thought I was helping, but I try to stay away from negativity, and incivility. The fact that you have experienced editors make comments and then don't understand how they could be construed as uncivil is remarkable. The ANI chose not to focus on the tens of thousands of correct dab edits I made, and chose to focus on the 50 or so errors I had made. I admitted the mistakes I made on Theophany were absolutely a lack of understanding on my part (I misconstrued the difference between the two, and got about 30 out of 1200 dabs wrong). Regardless, keep up the good work, but I've given my word not to work within the project anymore. Take care. You're a good and kind editor. Onel5969 TT me 22:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quek_See_Ling

@Onel5969:, Hi, I have reviewed the article in whole and make comment there, my conclusion is to keep (per comment there), do see anything you will like to discuss. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Tag unreadability tag?

One of the reasons I rarely contribute to en: these days is that their rules have become totally unreadable. Where once people would have considered a weakness in an article a reason to improve it, now it's a reason to slap a tag on it that doesn't tell the reader what's wrong with the article, nor does it help, or indeed invite, the original writer to improve the article.

I've corrected the article on the Vasa run as it still claimed it was the longest, which it isn't any more. To avoid merely saying "No it isn't!", I added a page on the current longest cross-country ski run (as far as I know): Pendlerrennet. If you want something improved about the article that you can't improve yourself, than ask me for something specific. In my experience people merely slapping on tags will eventually just lead to the information disappearing from Wikipedia. Aliter (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. Can't get much more specific than saying an article is uncited, and that it may not meet notability guidelines. Add some references from reliable independent sources, and look up WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS to understand what constitutes notability. Tags are put on an article to let ALL editors know that the article needs improvement, and what about the article needs work. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 12:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent article creations

Hello,

Thank you for your input on those recently created articles. I will adhere to stricter standards when making creations from here on out. I thought a standard had been set forth that a collegiate athlete that does have some notability from their college days whether nationally or inter-conference alone is not enough for inclusion (I had created an article on Vanderbilt's former starting QB a long time ago. He had no pro experience even on a practice squad and therefore got deleted). I had gone through some of Tennessee's rosters and did checks on some players to see if they made it to the pros. I figured practice squad was notable enough because some had links on team year pages. If I am wrong here, I understand and will go about normal editing and stricter conditions for article creations. Thank you for all you do on here to make the site better! Red Director (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The definition of spending time in the NFL is actually playing in the NFL. Without that they don't pass WP:GRIDIRON. Practice squads and draftees don't count. And none of the 3 appear to pass WP:NCOLLATH, as they didn't win a national award, aren't members of the College Football Hall of Fame, and did not gain significant national media attention as an individual. Onel5969 TT me 20:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

"Busy Bakers"

The short is notable for being the last Warner Bros. short to be supervised by Hardaway and Dalton. Yay Dad (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not a criteria for notability. Onel5969 TT me 10:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that is a criteria for notability. Yay Dad (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, feel free to provide a link to where it says that. Cause it's not. Onel5969 TT me 03:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Marking Jicka as a living person

Hi, you propose deleting Jicka page because it is a biography of a living person. He is dead for over 12 years, I have started the page so that people will work on developing it (there is nice French language article on him, but I didn't find much English language sources). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuggiePrg (talk • contribs) 16:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969/Archive_53&oldid=1137158273"