Jump to content

User talk:Onel5969/Archive 69

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71→Archive 75

Archive 57: August 2019

Final Fantasy XIV: Shadowbringers

Hello!

Just checking on a consensus, was it the right decision to revert the redirect on Final Fantasy XIV: Shadowbringers ? The game itself had a fair ammount of coverage in media, and the article was being expanded. Wouldn't the right act there be just to remove the unsourced long plot part added by the user Djuraaaaa? GNozaki (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi GNozaki - not in my opinion, since it wastes the time of NPP reviewers. If folks want to develop the redirect into an article, the best way is to move it into draft and work on it there, and then move it back. Or, you could put an "under construction" ({{construction}}) tag on it. Regardless, that plot has to be trimmed to less than 700 words.Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hum, by draft you mean creating as subpage like User:GNozaki/DraftPage ? ANd NPP i guess is New Pages - something? Alright, will take a try on it. Thanks for the tips! GNozaki (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually GNozaki I can move it into draft for you, without creating a redirect, which will make it easier to move back once it's finished, if you like. Onel5969 TT me 13:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Can I get Cindy Ball-Malone Reviewed

I would like to have the page Cindy Ball-Malone reviewed. This is my second time creating the page. The first time it was deleted. My hope is this one passes the expectations. Thanks! Eibln (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Eibln - different editors see things differently. I've taken articles like yours about this coach to AfD and had them !voted to keep, so I understand the nomination and votes to delete. But having participated in numerous coaching articles like this, usually the outcome is keep. I see no issue with this article based on the outcomes of many deletion discussions I've participated. Onel5969 TT me 03:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969 - I would like to say thank you for reviewing my articles that I have done over the last year or so. I typically see that you are the one that reviews them. I work very hard to make sure my articles are done correctly and accurately. Again Thanks! Eibln (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969 - I am upset now that this article has been deleted again after being reviewed and approved. I wasn't given a reason for the deletion. I am not sure what to do now. Thank you! Eibln (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Eibln - I made a mistake in my above comment, forgetting that this article had very recently gone through an AfD discussion. That's pretty much an automatic deletion, since 3 months is hardly likely to have changed the circumstances. My apologies for getting your hopes up. Onel5969 TT me 23:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for reviewing 4 of my articles and 5 redirects. (link) You're efforts to reduce the NPP backlog have not gone unnoticed! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You accepted an edit that broke a page

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arizona&type=revision&diff=909183376&oldid=908945203 But that edit completely messed up the page. Look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arizona&oldid=909183376#Education Thanks in advance, XavierItzm (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks XavierItzm, I only looked at the veracity of what the edit said according to the source. Missed the missing ref closure. Thanks for catching it, fixed now.Onel5969 TT me 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks to you! XavierItzm (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Kindly review articles that I created

Hello, I want to request you to review the articles which have not been reviewed yet. The articles [Too Movement] and [Tejpal] have not been reviewed yet and I request you to review them so that it can be included into the search results.

Thanks and Regards, -- Harshil want to talk? 13:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

ClariNet redirect

Hello, I created the article on ClariNet and got rid of the redirect from Brad Templeton. Mr Templeton created ClariNet, but is not the company. The company should have its own page. I am going to revert back. If you disagree, please let me know why you don't think that is a good idea. Blmurch (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Hi Blmurch - responded on the article's talk page.Onel5969 TT me 16:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyvios on new articles on sport on TV by decade

Hi again, I've dealt with the copyvios on Major League Baseball on television in the 2000s and Major League Baseball on television in the 2010s but as user:BornonJune8 created these articles by taking content from several existing articles, you might want to check the articles the content as taken from for the same copyvios. Incidentally I declined to revdel on NBA on television in the 1960s as the material appeared to be copied from WP by crossword-clues.com from one of the source articles BornonJune8 used in creating the article last week. Nthep (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Please don't moving or don't redirected page of Angel Tee because she was left 7 Icons since 2014 Thank You. Roseirena (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Review request

Hello, I want to request you to review the articles which have not been reviewed yet. The articles Khatik Mohalla (Jabalpur) have not been reviewed yet and I request you to review them so that it can be included into the search results. Thanks and Regards, ☆★Sunil Butolia (✉✉) 12:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)sunilbutolia

A barnstar for you

The Reviewer Barnstar
Thank you for all the new article reviews! Railfan23 (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirects

You stated that sections are not to be used in redirects.? Not according to WP:Redirects. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry - I think you meant section signs - they were on the page.Iztwoz (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Iztwoz - can you point me to the section (no pun intended) in WP:Redirects where it says that? I can't find it. And when you added specificity to the target (which was quite correct) you also created a section on the Redirect, which I don't think is right. I've never seen it before, and I've looked at tens of thousands of redirects. I think you may be confusing creating a section with linking to a section (which is what you did to add specificity). The latter is fine, but the former shouldn't be done.Onel5969 TT me 18:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Seems we're talking at cross purposes - if I had added a section to the redirect page it was unintentional - I have put through countless redirects without this occurring. Best--Iztwoz (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
No worries Iztwoz - when you added the "#Type I cells" inside the brackets, you also put === on either side of the brackets, creating a section. That's what I was talking about. Onel5969 TT me 21:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverting of article Chahat Pandey

I am asking you politely why you reverted this article while reliable references are provided. And talking for notability, the person has done 2-3 times lead role and 2-3 times supporting role. Please do not remove my comment and provide adequate answer. - Ritz1409 (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The answers to your questions are listed at the AfD. She has had a single significant role, all other roles are minor. Take care.Onel5969 TT me 13:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sportsmen (and women)

Dear Onel5969, I am quite new as a user. But I am trying to do the best for fulfilling the criteria. You have tonight proposed for deletion one American Pole Vaulter that is qualified next month to the World Championships (in Doha). That means that this pole vaulter is amongst the 30 Best pole vaulters in the World (in 2019). Do you really think that he did not meet the criteria ? I do not think so. He qualified at US Trials, one of the most difficult competition in athletics. Of course, I do not know if you know that (or perhaps the stub is not enough clear). Yours. -Binbaksa (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

you do also the same for Amere Lattin, Silver medalist at 2019 Pan American Games… quite surprising.-Binbaksa (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
is it a game? Continuing nominations without any kind of reply ? I do not like the play (or I do not understand it. Not very polite indeed.-Binbaksa (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Not a game. I usually respond to stuff on my talk page about once a day. Regarding your first question, "30 best pole vaulters" is not an independent source (being a publication of the university he attends). And yes, that does not meet the criteria. I provided you with links to the criteria, WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE, although that SNG (special notability guideline) is only for the track athletes, on the others, such as the fencer I should simply have put WP:NSPORTS. There's also WP:NCOLLATH. I reviewed about a dozen or of your articles. Most of them met the qualifications, but several, having no senior success, do not. Regarding the article on Amere does not mention that, and although you've made that assertion, you have provided no citation for it. And even if you do, that may not be enough, since winning a medal at the Pan American games (unlike simple participation in the Olympics) does not mean automatic notability on WP.Onel5969 TT me 10:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
as (many) other users than me suggested, many of your AfDs are problematic. Camilla Mancini is World and European Senior Champion, Amere Lattin is Pan Am silver medalist. All the AfDs made that day are now closed (with Keep…). I suggest you to have a closer look to NATHLETE when we are speaking of athletes that are participating to big senior championships… because your explanation is far from convincing. A pole vaulter qualified at the US Trials for the World Championships is ALWAYS inside the criteria. @Trackinfo:. Having a look to your Talk Page demonstrates me that your Nomination Deletion is far from being approved… It is controversial and in these cases useless. This post does not need any kind of reply.--Arorae (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
I honestly need all the help I can get. Many Thanks... 💯💯💯💯 LonerXL (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks LonerXL - keep up the good work.Onel5969 TT me 16:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You casually suggest that my providing a bibliography of an noted academic (Paul Lunde) constitutes copyright violation. The bibliography was provided to me by one of his colleagues for the express purpose of the Wikipedia entry. Your other comments may have some merit and I need to find more links to sources, but in suppressing the bibliography for spurious copyright reasons you have effectively made it impossible to provide a list of external sources.

Can I suggest that on this point at least you are less trigger happy and less rude? I realised the bibliography could be (and will be) better formatted, but to suggest that one cannot cut and paste such detailed information from a non-copyrighted source seems very odd indeed. And as your allegation has no merit, it is hard to imagine how I can address it and submit the article for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmrichardson (talk • contribs) 13:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

If you intend to edit on WP, you should really learn the rules. See WP:COPYVIO. Just because you claim to have permission does not mean that you actually have permission. You simply cut and paste information from another source onto WP. Even if you provided a citation (which you didn't), you can't do that. And his colleague has no standing to waive copyright, only the holder of that copyright does. If you can get them to agree to waive the copyright, the procedure for adding that type of information can be found here: [Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials]]. And the only rudeness regarding this issue is your query above. Therefore, as I have a pretty hard and fast rule about rude and uncivil editors posting on my page, unless you can be civil, don't post on my talkpage, as any further uncivil commentary (and making comments like yours above are uncivil), will be summarily removed.Onel5969 TT me 16:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Populated places

Hi - Thanks for the cordial edit summary regarding the terminology in navboxes such as Template:La Paz County, Arizona. You are right that the USGS/Board on Geographic Names uses "populated place" for locations such as the unincorporated communities in the county. And I agree that it's an improvement on the terminology I had been using in earlier edits, which was "Other unincorporated places". However, if you go into the Geographic Names Information System, you will see that "populated place" refers to any inhabited location, whether incorporated, CDP, or whatever. Compare, for example, the incorporated town of Quartzite and the CDP of Ehrenberg. Since all of the communities in the first three categories are populated places, it makes sense to add "Other" to the third of those categories. I hope you'll agree. --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ken Gallager - I fully understand your point. I don't mind you making those changes, but I think "populated places" should be it's own category, and perhaps another "other" category. But not worth quibbling over. Keep up your good work.Onel5969 TT me 03:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

AFD notice

This is your discussion to have. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

RE: Proposed deletion of Jose Halufi

Hi Onel. Thanks for reviewing articles I create. I have only one question, what is the difference between this article and the one I have created? (When I create an article, I always compare with another articles, and I think "if one article has only [name of the actor + birth and death date + is a Spanish/Italian/American actor + list of the filmography], I can create one similar to it and I won't have problems with the deletion". Greetings. Tajotep (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tajotep - The answer is that yours is better sourced. That being said, the problem is that your article is about an actor who doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, based on their significant roles, while the other, while not anywhere as well-sourced, does pass WP:NACTOR, since they have several significant roles (along with quite a few bit parts). Hope that helps, and keep up the good work, you add a lot to this project. I think this is the first one of your articles that I couldn't get to pass notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 04:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Ocean Rowing Society International article deletion

Hello, could you please help me to understand what parts of the article infringed copyrights? I would be happy to rewrite it or apply any suggested improvements. I believe the article meets all the criteria otherwise and it is important to have this article available.

Intoextreme (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

In case the problem is caused by quotation from www.oceanrowing.com would it be sufficient if I provide a statement from one of the coordinators of Ocean Rowing Society to allow this text to be used and revert the edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intoextreme (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Intoextreme - yes it was from that site, but if you wish to get them to waive their copyright, see the process at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Onel5969 TT me 04:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. If this process is completed, would you recover the article? Intoextreme (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The note was added at the bottom of the page: http://www.oceanrowing.com/ORS_30years.htm , following the wiki guidelines. Could you please let me know if it is sufficient and if you could please recover the article? Intoextreme (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa - could you please take a look at the above link, and if it meets WP standards, could you undelete Ocean Rowing Society International? Thank you.Onel5969 TT me 12:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, thanks as always. There you go, Intoextreme, thanks for your patience.Onel5969 TT me 12:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you guys, always happy to learn. Intoextreme (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe one question: the hyperlinks to this article show in red now, but do redirect. Will it be fixed automatically or shall the bot be sent to sort it out? Intoextreme (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

AFD tags

Persistently and improperly removing AfD tags is a specie of disruptive editing. I am guessing the issue at AIV is effectively moot. But if it starts up again drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I missed replying to this Ad Orientem - but thanks for letting me know.Onel5969 TT me 22:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Southwestern United States

Back in the time period described, the United States did not exist yet, thus it is accurate to say "now occupied by the Southwestern United States". 50.68.172.46 (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The D.O.C. & The Doctor

This article deserves its own page, not a redirect. The single include songs that were not on the album, it was a chart-topper on the US rap charts, and it featured a music video. More information can still be added as well. Jericho735 (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Haliclystus stejnegeri

I take my time trying to find a nice stub to add, and thinking about which categories to add, then bang - a green tick's there already - Onel5969 beat me to it! How am I ever going to get my review stats up... ;) GirthSummit (blether) 12:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

lol... the same thing happens to me from time to time, (although I don't really look for categories), mine is more of the copyvio, project pages on the talk page, or stub sort issue. But please keep up your good work, Girth Summit. Onel5969 TT me 02:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I recently realized you've commited a mass disambiguation changing of Habsburg Austria to Austrian Monarchy...it is a mistake for the reason the latter could be just limitedly understood by some unprofessionals to denote the Habsburg Monarchy, that was not a country and the core element, the Archduchy of Austria have never been equal with it, but literally that meant properly Habsburg Austria. I already corrected some articles in my watchlist, but I definely cannot to do it manually in such an amount of pages...so please launch again a mass replacement, and replace it with Habsburg Monarchy, that is proper and won't lead to misunderstandings (especially Hungary, as part of the Habsburg Monarchy participated in much of the events in the articles you touched, but it was NEVER Hasburg Austria, etc.).

P.S., I don't know how you technically solve it, but:

- you have to change the recent [[Austrian monarchy|Habsburg Austria]] to [[Habsburg Monarchy]]]

- also earlier, I had to change many of your mass replacements regarding Habsburg Empire, that was unnecessary and I had to shortened it to Habsburg Monarchy, so please discuss in the future before you'd make any such of mass change.

Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC))

Hi, you really need to show diffs about what your talking about. The redirect was recently changed from Habsburg Monarchy to Archduchy of Austria, and then to Austrian Circle (which was clearly incorrect). However, based upon dating, one of three entities seems to be correct, the Archduchy article (pre-Habsurg Monarchy), he Habsurg Monarchy (up until 1804), and then the Austrian Empire (after 1804). Each of my changes fit into that structure, I think the difficulty lies in the fact that I used the redirect on the dab page (Austrian Monarchy) instead of using Habsurg Monarchy. That has since been corrected on the dab page. Onel5969 TT me 02:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
By the way, I don't think your issue is with me, but rather the editor who makes those changes on the dab pages.Onel5969 TT me 02:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
check i.e. my edits after you in the Austrians article. Check as well at Habsburg Austria (The whole Hasburg Monarchy was never an "Austrian land", see i.e. the status of Hungary, etc.), so in your listing "he Habsurg Monarchy (up until 1804)" is definetly erroneus. As a consequence, if you had made the disamb link change only the Habsburg Monarchy, would be either fallacious. In the given context's of the article's you touched, Habsburg Austria may refer nominally only to the Austrian Duchies, but not to the Habsburg Monarchy on the whole, but in cases where really the Habsburg Monarchy should be meant, there "Habsburg Austria" cannot be used. So unless there is not a general solution, I have to one-by-one correct the corresponding articles and properly put the exact, proper reference. In this state, I's say the better would if you'd undo what you did, because that was less erroneus that is was before (and then better adding the disambiguation needed tag, an put the proper link later.
P.S., I already edited the dab page, as I referred in my first sentence, but please in the future contact me before any mass Hasburg/Austria related action!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC))
Not sure what you're talking about, as your above comments don't make much sense. I refer to my earlier comment. Onel5969 TT me 03:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me, if you are not sure or do not understand, it does not mean my comments would "have no sense", you are definetly not an expert in the topic, but that is not my fault. You simply cannot link Habsburg Austria to the Austrian Monarchy, because the two is NOT synonymous or interchangeable, because the earlier refer only the hictorial Austrians lands, while the latter is a rare synonyme for the Habsburg Monarchy that included also NON-Austrian lands (nad was referred only Austrian because of the ruling Habsburg house's origin). Clear now? Thus undo you mass linkings, because the result is worse as it was before.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC))
@KIENGIR: The page Habsburg Austria redirected to Habsburg Monarchy until May. If any links are bad now, they were bad before Onel5969 fixed them. Also, the term certainly can refer to the Habsburg Monarchy, just as it can refer to the Austrian Empire after 1804, which included many non-Austrian lands, including Hungary. "Austria" is a common shorthand for the lands of the Austrian Habsburgs in historical writing, as you know. When people talk about "Austria" in the context of the French Revolutionary Wars, it does not exclude Hungary any more than talk of "Prussia" excludes Brandenburg. Srnec (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Srnec:, ok, Onel did everything with a good faith, but he could easily undo it. Hungary was NOT incorporated to the Austrian Empire, it has been a Regnum Independens, only the king (Emperor of Austria) was the same, etc. However, I googled "Habsburg Austria" and I did not at first glance anything that would support recently such lazy an improper assumption (that surely existed in history, but does not seem commonly as "Habsburg Austria" per se).(KIENGIR (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC))
Hi KIENGIR. I think you are of the misunderstanding that correcting all those redirects was done en mass. Unfortunately, each was done individually, and took me over an hour to do. But let me ask you a question, you want those links to point to Habsburg Monarchy, correct? But that's where I'm not sure your issue is, Austrian monarchy currently redirects to Habsburg Monarchy, so the end result is the same. Is your issue that a reader still sees Habsurg Austria? That has nothing to do with piping in the link, or fixing the dabs. That's a different type of correction. If you wanted, you could go to my contributions page and looke back August 17, when I made those edits starting at 21:49 and ending at 22:53. Not everyone was to Austrian monarchy, so you could pick and choose from that last and make any changes you deem necessary. Oh, and by the way, thanks for your comments, Srnec. Onel5969 TT me 22:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Onel. Yes the problem is Hasburg Austria, as discussed or you may seen in the explanations of the edit logs, it may be significantly misleading in many cases, so I will have not other choice than two check every page one by one (huh!) and fix them, because as I sad there is not an uniform solution, somewhere Habsburg Monarchy is correct, but some other places (Arch)duchy of Austria, as it is context sensitive.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC))

My good? conduct

In anticipation of an angry reaction from Ron John please agree with (or revert) my conversion of U.S. Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal into a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth - Another editor has already weighed in on the subject, agreeing with it remaining a redirect, which I also agree with. Not only is all the info in the article contained in the target, imho a researcher looking for this info is better served by understanding that that medal is one of several in the US Armed Forces which are all similar. By the way, thanks for all you do on WP. Onel5969 TT me 10:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverting redirected article

Why did you reverted a redirected article named Raozan article. Raozan Upazila is a subdistrict. But the sole town's name is also Raozan. But 'Raozan' page was redirected to Raozan Upazila, which is not proper. That's why for making the article about town of Raozan I redirected Raozan Upazila to Raozan. But you reverted this redirect. Please explain here Great Hero32 (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I did explain it, in the edit summary. Zero citations from independent reliable sources (and in this case simply zero citations at all).Onel5969 TT me 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

AFC Mobile, Nebraska Bugeaters, any and all Gulf Coast Premier League clubs

Any particular reasoning why these have been deleted and redirected to the league? Lojic11 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

First, you should really provide links. Second, Can't see where I've touched [Nebraska Bugeaters]], which is a redirect to Nebraska Cornhuskers football, which is appropriate, since it was the former name of the team. Second, AFC Mobile is a non-notable non-professional soccer team, and should be a redirect as per WP:FOOTYN (which was explained in the edit summary. Same for all the other non-professional teams in that non-professional league.Onel5969 TT me 17:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The Gulf Coast Premier League is sanctioned by the United States Adult Soccer Association, who is governed by US Soccer. All of our clubs are eligible to compete in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Open_Cup, which is a national competition. Lojic11 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Just being eligible to compete doesn't pass notability criteria. The criteria states: "Teams that have played in the national cup...". In addition, there might be an argument that the first two rounds of the U.S. Open Cup are "qualifying rounds". 3 of the four articles you reverted have never played in the Cup, and therefore are not notable. On another note, your comment above, "All of our clubs are eligible to compete..." might suggest a conflict of interest on your part. If you are affiliated with the league or any of the clubs, you need to disclose that, and most likely should refrain from editing those articles. Onel5969 TT me 21:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I assists with their social media stuff. I'm going to assume you plan on combing through the other USASA affiliated leagues (USL2, NPSL and UPSL) as well to do the same? Lojic11 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your candor. You need to go to WP:PAID, and follow the instructions there to disclose your relationship. Regarding the other leagues, I hadn't really planned on it. I only did the GCPL since one of the articles was a redirect and then turned into an article, which put it on the New Page Patrolling list. Whenever that happens, out of fairness, I look at the other teams as well. You'll notice I didn't revert one of those pages, since that team actually made it to the Cup. Another editor might see it differently, if they feel those rounds are qualifying. Onel5969 TT me 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Is the lack of notability purely due to insufficient of supporting references to the team existence and operations?

If one of the teams you deleted was able to establish relevance to the region, and the sporting community in general, say through the inclusion of links to permanent secondary sources of local, regional, and sporting record, Would that be sufficient?

The seemingly deliberately narrow nature of these deletions given the extent of USASA teams which, by your judgement, would also stand to be removed is quite troubling. I know it’s not your job to police all of Wikipedia, but this feels highly selective. Sigiltempus (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop deleting these articles. Many of the pages have already had the notoriety passed previously. To keep with your own rule, you would have to deleted hundreds of other articles from other equivalent leagues. AndersLindergaard (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop deleting these articles if you are not going to address those with leagues at the same level and the 100’s of articles with them. The threshold is being met. Why are you being selective, especially on pages which have existed, been edited and accepted, but now chosen by you for deletion?Jonathancol (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop posting on my page. And please stop re-adding non-notable teams. If you have an issue with those other teams, feel free to redirect or take them to AfD.Onel5969 TT me 00:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I think non-notable is being defined by you and not the Wiki community at this point. What is the agenda here? Obviously, you have not looked in to any of the teams, the owners and the communities that they represent. Jonathancol (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
And I think you really don't do much work on WP, and are completely clueless as to what constitutes notability. Even your comment on the AfD shows a lack of understanding. And you should also understand that when an editor requests you not post on their talk page, you shouldn't post on their talk page. Any further commentary from you will be summarily deleted. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 10:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

The Reviewer Barnstar
Thank you for all the new articles reviews! You made my day :) --Naveen N Kadalaveni (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Squaring

Whoops, thanks for taking care of the leftover links to Squaring; that totally slipped my mind (it looks like the ones you changed were all getting redirected to somewhere inappropriate too, so bonus). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries Deacon Vorbis... glad you took care of most of the load. Can't believe that wasn't a dab long before.Onel5969 TT me 00:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Bear Rinehart

I see you reverted my creation of an independent article for Bear Rinehart as being WP:TOOSOON. However, I do not see anything under that rule that would make this too soon. In fact, Rinehart is notable under WP:MUSICBIO. He is the lead singer of a well-known band, released music independently of that band, and has a lot of news coverage to show this. I am not sure how to resolve this as we probably disagree with one another on this. Is there a venue where this can be discussed or what happens if I simply reset the article to where it was and we continue to disagree? Please let me know so I can follow the appropriate protocol. --MJP310 (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Here are a few references that discuss him independently for "Wilder Woods:"

Sharmin Sultana Sumi

Since you redirected Sharmin Sultana Sumi to her band Chirkutt, the creator of Sharmin Sultana Sumi, User:ChotoBhai recreated the article at Sharmin Sultana Sumi (singer). Any thoughts on the article in its current state regarding notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Alberto DeJesus

Hi, One - I should have tagged that article that I was reviewing it but my goal was trying to get it deleted instead of drafted. The article creator is indef blocked and the article appears to be a big hoax - or you could call it spam if you're generous. Just look at the sources - Urban Dictionary as the first source? The guy is 20 yo, the majority of sources are to his HS activities, he couldn't possibly have held all those job positions and attended college and builty 4 or 5 companies all at the same time. The article really needs a good salting. Atsme Talk 📧 15:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Atsme - I agree. We could always use Miscellany for Deletion? Onel5969 TT me 15:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes - doing it now. Atsme Talk 📧 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Atsme - Your nom was a bit malformed. Fixed it for you. Onel5969 TT me 16:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, Thank You!! What did I do so it won't happen again? Directions said to add the mfd template to the draft, which I did, and then I clicked on the red link to create the page as instructed at WP:MFD but in the interim, Bbb23 reverted the template - Undid revision 911853317 by Atsme (talk) improperly created - probably for the same reason you fixed but I need to know what I did wrong. I'm really confused now. Atsme Talk 📧 16:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
There are 3 steps. First, the tag on the draft; second, there is a template you have to use on the created discussion page (which I put there, and used your description); third, you have to add the article to the MfD page, using the template. It's a little confusing, but it's all on the MfD page.Onel5969 TT me 17:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

List of largest companies in Belgium

Hello Onel5969. I don't think I violated any copyright. I never copied from followcn.com/chinas-largest-companies. followcn.com/chinas-largest-companies is probably a copy from List of largest Chinese companies. Can I now remove the templates please. Sorry for any mistakes. English is not my first language.--Afus199620 (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Afus199620 - and thanks for your work on English WP. You could be right, but I'm not sure, especially since CN claims copyright. Let's let an admin who focuses on that take a look, pinging Diannaa and Justlettersandnumbers to take a look. Onel5969 TT me 16:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, Thank you.--Afus199620 (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It's a match for List of largest Chinese companies It's okay to copy from one Wikipedia article to another, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. This also helps avoid false positives for copyright issues. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
As always Diannaa - thank you for your expertise. Afus199620, feel free to revert my edits, as long as you add the correct attribution to those articles. Onel5969 TT me 03:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I want to thank all of you for you help! Did I do it the right way in List of largest Italian companies?--Afus199620 (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely! Nice job. Keep up the good work.Onel5969 TT me 13:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Eric Sparrow

Hey, I have seen that you reverted my edits on the article. It would have been nice if you had sought consensus with me or a second opinion first. 1. the afd you are basing your revert on is 11 (!) years old. That alone should suffice for reevaluation 2. if you look at the last version of this article before it was turned into a redirect (and on which the afd is based), you will see it is an unsourced mess nowhere comparable to the article I wrote. 3. the reception and legacy section alone establishes enough relevance for an own article in my opinion. I hope you can reconsider your revert or let a third party evaluate the article. Best regards, --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi DasallmächtigeJ - and I can certainly appreciate the effort you put into the article. However, that doesn't allay the fact that the character still suffers from the same fate as was described in that old AfD - lack of real world notability. Onel5969 TT me 19:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Family Guy episode "An App a Day".

Why'd you redirect it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.141.200 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Because it's not notable.Onel5969 TT me 19:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:NSONG

Thank you for reviewing High Rated Gabru, Kya Baat Ay and other indian song articles. All articles meets notablity, there is no chart system in India. There were just less references but all songs are notable (in India) tho. Ask any indian user. I think it's good to add notablity tag than redirecting. There is big difference between other countries and India's music industry. Regards! -- CptViraj (📧) 01:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks, but there is no country exemption for NSong, for any country. NSONG is an SNG, meant to denote songs which would normally pass WP:GNG. So, if there is no way for a song from India to pass NSONG, then it means that you need several in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources to show that the song passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 02:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Beurard-Valdoye

Hello there. Any chance this French poet can be let out of his English language 'incubator' where he has languished for 8 weeks or more? Whoever has powers of review, obviously not me, can you please take a butchers? Ta very much.--Po Mieczu (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

dry land vs dryland ?

wikipedia is not a dictionary, but some non native speakers may find it helpful to disambig like the See also in wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dryland

--Wisdood (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gary Schwartz

Hi there. The deleted version of Gary Schwartz (actor) was substantially different from the article as it appears now (essentially a one-paragraph stub without any references), so I declined the speedy deletion. Regards, decltype (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thornely

Please stop tinkering at Thomas Thornely and respect what others have said before you: the city is not the state and while one lies in the other, it is misleading to link to one or the other without certainty. Indeed, it makes it less likely that someone will delve and find the detailed evidence required in future. And please note that the WikiData entry is wrong also (as it is for so many other people), so I wouldn't rely on WD for anything, even a short description. You're encouraging crap, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Schwartz (actor)

Greetings. Looks like the page curation bug bit you again--you'll need to create a new discussion page for this one. --Finngall talk 22:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Gary Schwartz (actor)

Needs to be redone as a (2nd nomination); showing up on the AfD log with the 2012 nom. Nate • (chatter) 22:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon (from their talk page), Finngall and Mrschimpf. I keep forgetting (since it happens so infrequently), that you can't make a second AfD using the page curation tools, you have to use Twinkle. Fixed now. Onel5969 TT me 23:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrol Qualification

Please, how do I qualify for autopatrol. I created two C-class articles and it's still pending review. The pages are Patrick Chuka and Shuaibu Ibrahim (Army) pages. Thank you. Nnadigoodluck (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's going to be a while if you ask me. Both of the above articles had major copyright violations. You cannot simply cut and paste information from other sources into WP. Please read WP:COPYVIO. But you can read the qualifications for the right at Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Onel5969 TT me 10:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RE: Autopatrol Qualification

Oh. I didn't know about the copyright violations, until today. Thanks a lot for pointing out this to me, I've read about it and I'll take it very seriously in the creation of my future pages.

In the meantime, I've edited the pages and removed all the copyright violations and I will be very happy, if you would re-review the pages Patrick Chuka and Shuaibu Ibrahim (Army) so that it can be accessible to all readers.

By doing so, you'll ensure that I'm on the right track, so that I don't break the rules of WP ever again.

For sure, you're my mentor from today.

Regards! Nnadigoodluck (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nnadigoodluck - First, please don't leave the same message on multiple editors' talk pages. Second, I already reviewed Shuaibu Ibrahim (Army), and since he's a general, he automatically meets notability criteria. However, you removed the revdel tag from the article. Please don't do that. I've already removed the copyrighted material, but an admin must go in and purge it from history. You can make any other changes to the article you wish to (as long as they comply with referencing and quality standards), but you can't remove that tag. The revdel request on Patrick Chuka has already been taken care of by Nthep, and I've taken a look at the article. I'm not certain that artist passes either WP:GNG, or WP:NARTIST, so I left it for another reviewer to take a look at. Please be patient. The queue at New Page Patrol is over 5000 articles long, stretching back to just over 3 months. But remember, even if it's not reviewed, the article is still live and can be viewed by anyone. Hope this helps.Onel5969 TT me 22:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Onel5969 I'm still learning and I'm hoping to get more better someday! Nnadigoodluck (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Learned and still learning

Until now, I didn't know about the kind of articles needed in WP, but based on what you have previously pointed out to me, I'm now learned and still learning, thanks to you.

I've read about notability, copyright violations and some other great articles relating to page creation and What Wikipedia is not.

From today, I'll be adhering to all these towards the creation of my pages.

Thanks a lot 😊 Nnadigoodluck (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

marihuana legislation proposals

Perhaps this can be merged in an article with a title like this, instead of deletion? It would be reasonable for people to look them up here. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point DGG, but there are a ton of legislative motions which could be included. Virtually all of these won't become law, and there are very few WP articles about failed legislation. Perhaps a list article, with a brief description each? That might make the most sense. Onel5969 TT me 00:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed about a list. Possibly organize by jurisdiction or date? (Actually, now that you mention it, I've been wondering about our gneral prctice for failed legislation, and perhaps similar lists of some high-interest special topics might be in order, such as climate control. If you start this one, I'll start that one. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed DGG. But can you help a brother out. For the life of me I can't think of a single title of one of those articles, neither can I think of the cyrillic user name who created them. I've looked through my watchlist, and nothing pops out. If you can provide a link, I'll start on the list and then redirect all those articles to it. It's been quite a while since I did a list article. Onel5969 TT me 01:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@DGG: I started a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#How_do_we_decide_if_legislation_that's_in_a_U.S._House_committee_is_notable on that topic. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969/Archive_69&oldid=1143862835"