User talk:Onel5969/Archive 71

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

→

Archive 75

Archive 59: October 2019

Arizona settlements

Thanks for your edit to Achi, Arizona and other nearby settlements. I've been making several corrections to these same articles, and at Benson, Arizona, I have asked for an opinion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677, first, thanks for all the work you do on WP, especially on AZ articles. Second, yes this particular editor does have a habit of adding uncited material to articles. I had to undo about a dozen or so edit of theirs yesterday. I also noticed the source used at Benson, and am glad you brought it up at WP:NORN. I'll leave my thoughts on the issue there. Will be interested to see the outcome.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

They're at it again, Magnolia677 - this time re-adding uncited material to county templates, Template:Pinal County, Arizona. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I just left a message on their talk page. This appears to be an editor who cites sources, but only loosely uses the sources cited and mostly adds original research . I'm going to look deeper into more of their edits. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Havana D'Primera

Hello, the page that I wrote and created, Havana D'Primera, as deleted mistakenly. The page in question that you believed it was copied from actually copied the text from Wikipedia, and from my own writing.

I think the confusion arose because they copied an earlier version of the page, which was deleted before for not having enough reliable sources. It was deleted due to inactivity (I left it for a while), so I wrote a new one with more sources and this time it was accepted. The website copied the text directly from an earlier version of this page. I'm positive about that because they're my own words! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicksufc (talk • contribs) 16:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nicksufc - I'm not an admin, so can't help you. Also I didn't delete the article, simply nominated it for deletion due to the copyright issue. The circumstances you claim above can certainly happen, but since the article has already been deleted, I can't check. Might I suggest you contact Anthony Appleyard, the admin who deleted it? However, that being said, before I nominate for copyright violations, I do check when the original page was created, to check against it being a case of WP:MIRROR. But I am definitely not infallible, so your best bet is to contact that admin.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

ARIZONA PLACE DELETIONS

I'm not doing this editing and research to waste my time and I don't appreciate my work being deleted. You are keeping outdated information on these pages. Offer up what references you need to satisfy yourself line by line, otherwise you are being entirely unhelpful, sir. DJ Jones74 (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Then you need to understand and follow WP policies and guidelines. You may not add uncited information, you may not contradict cited information. If you say that these places are on the Tohono res, then provide a cite for that. If you can't, stop it. And stop renaming populated places, which is the official term as per the USGS, for any other term. Finally, your combative attitude does nothing to help your position.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

My attitude is borne of attempting to meticulously research each individual locale only to have it summarily wiped out by unhelpful editors writing even more unhelpful copy and paste points to excuse deleting this work. It seems as if a few here don't want these pages changed whatsoever. If you truly consider making Wikipedia the best place for up-to-date information, you will work with me to locate references you find suitable, rather than keeping these pages not only out of date, but demonstrably false. See this page and try to offer some help and productive comments as to how I can give "references" that apparently are suitable: Talk:Ak Chut Vaya, Arizona DJ Jones74 (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I really could care less about what your crappy attitude is "borne" out of. You are wasting valuable time of editors who are actually productive on the site, and you seem unwilling or unable to understand constructive criticism given to you. And this is over a lengthy period of time. If you really want to work with other editors, you need to learn how to source information. Look at WP:RS for a start. Then look at WP:CITE and WP:CIT for how to reference and footnote. Making statements like "...and can be classified as a ghost." are nothing more than WP:OR and are forbidden on WP. You really have to learn WP guidelines and policies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Danilo Butorovic

Hello Onel5969

I noticed you deleted my article about Danilo Butorovic, or rather moved it to another part of the site for 'incubation'. I have also noticed that it can take more than 8 weeks for articles in this area to be reviewed, so perhaps as it was an already extant article a message or note would have been more appropriate. As it is only a short article as of now, (due to it relating to an individual in the fledgling stages of their career), what little was there was largely referenced but a couple more references have now been added. Perhaps this is what you were looking for when you moved the article, if so it would be appreciated if it could now be restored

Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Grosseteste - The issue is that this person doesn't seem to pass either WP:GNG or WP:WP:NFOOTY. Assistant coaches don't qualify. It is very rare that one would get enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG. Don't get discouraged, the article is well written and formatted. And, if you have an article that gets draftified, reaching out to the reviewer who did that is never a bad thing. If it's me, always feel free to reach out and ask me to take another look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, whilst he is currently an assistant manager he was manager of Orijent 1919 for 4 years prior to his work with Slaven Bilic.

Hello again Onel5969

As previously stated Butorovic served as a manager for several years before becoming assistant to Slaven Bilic, and his current position does not negate his earlier one. The article has now also been referenced in a far more extensive manner, with no unreferenced information remaining. An update would be appreciated as obviously i will not revert the action myself. Best Regards, Grosseteste (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. First I'm glad you got the socking issue taken care of. Second, I've moved the article back to the mainspace, after doing a little bit of work on it. Be careful of copyright violations (copyvios). Since he was a manager, he meets WP:NFOOTY. Good luck in the future.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar 4 u!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your help with the cuisine of Israel template! Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Yallayallaletsgo, keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

pleasure

Nice to meet you. TY for the notice and thanks, appreciate it. I should be saying TY to you for 9 years and over 385,000 edits. TY. Cheers. — Ched (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice to meet you as well Ched, I don't think we've ever interacted before. And a lot of my edits are simply gnomish activities, so it's not really a big deal.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

To review a new page

kindly review this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvesh_Amte ☆★Shubham Ghodke (✉✉)

To review a new page

kindly review this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvesh_Amte ☆★Shubham Ghodke (✉✉)

page move with existing redirect

Thanks for your revisions for St. Vincent Evansville and St. Mary's Hospital and Medical Center. It appears the latter is now known as the former, but rather than move the page, someone apparently created a redirect under the new name, preventing a traditional page move. How does one update the title of the article without following the procedures for a merge (which involves cut and paste of the entire article, per Wikipedia:Merge)? Thanks! Mdewman6 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I seem to have answered my own question at Wikipedia:Moving a page#Moves where the target name has an existing page. The redirect page has too much history to allow a move over a redirect. I will put in a move request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdewman6 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Help on discussion on naming

Talk:Jesus water miracle § Title Hi greetings, I am asking you for a help. If you like please consider this discussion about the naming of an article. The article is about a hoax. Your suggestions may help. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Brynithel

Hi @Onel5969:. Happy to contribute, sorry for the bad sourcing originally on Waunlwyd! I was probably trying to write too quickly. Small world, articles such as Welsh Americans and Welsh settlement in the Americas are among my favourites. I have some relatives from near to Aberbeeg who were probably around during the same generation! Many thanks for the reviews. Llemiles (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirected KPXH-LD to KPXC-TV (not)

Hello @Onel5969: I wanted to let you know that why did you have to redirect KPXH-LD to KPXC-TV? Why did you have to do that? Main CentralTime301 page and talk 11:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Because it doesn't meet WP:BROADCAST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Tân Thành (township)

Hi, I've added the source for this page, the source is from General Statistics Office of Vietnam, so that should be reliable. I also changed its name from 'town' to 'township' in order to avoid confusion. In most articles, town refers to thị xã, which is a district-level subdivision, while township refers to commune-level town, which Tân Thành is the case. Please consider republished the page in the new name with 'township' Cn5900 (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. There was no issue with the page, except for a total lack of citations, so has soon as the current redirect is deleted, it will be moved back to mainspace. Thanks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, Tân Thành (township) has been deleted. Please move it back to the mainspace Cn5900 (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

No reply?

I don't know if I did something wrong, but you never replied to me.--Mister Stan (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

Sir, thank you for reviewing those articles created by me. You have done a laborious job to review a number of articles. Hopefully you will do this further. Since I am not an autopatroller, my articles should be reviewed by sr wikipedians. Thank you again Pinakpani (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Source for "Administrative subdivisions" in Vietnam

Hi, as I mentioned. The source I provided () does include every information needed for verification. It's just you must look it up in the specific province, and district. For example, to look for Long Châu, An Giang, you must first click on An Giang Province's row, which in this case, row 89, then you will search for the district-level subdivision, which is Tân Châu (row 887). And finally when you clicked on that, you'll be able to find Long Châu's information. Cn5900 (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want me to provide the source that you can search more easily, then I'm sorry I can't. That website is the most reliable source I can provide, since it's publisher is General Statistics Office of Vietnam, that's why I used it for every article I created. Cn5900 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Started to answer on your talk page, will continue there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Unreviewed pages

Hello. I'm currently fixing failed attempts to subst: templates and found these four "unreviewed" articles. I'm not sure what better template to apply or whether I should simply remove the templates, so I thought I'd ask a keen friendly reviewer. Thanks, Certes (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Certes - I looked at the first one, and it was reviewed by Cwmhiraeth back in May, so I would simply remove the tags. I do that all the time with the edit summary something like, "invalid template" or "invalid tag". And thanks for all the hard work you put in on WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done; thanks for the quick reply. Certes (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirect WPXU-LD to WPXN-TV

Why did you have to redirect WPXU-LD to WPXN-TV? The low-power station is a daystar station and not a repeater. CentralTime301 (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Because it doesn't meet either WP:BROADCAST or WP:GNG. I suggest you familiarize yourself with those WP guidelines.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Maybe you or me should start a talk page on WPXU-LD and decide if this article should be redirected to either WPXN-TV or a list of Daystar affiliates, or kept as is that I made hours ago. CentralTime301 (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC) P.S.: I had made a talk thing about keep WPXU-LD or redirect it to WPXN-TV or a list of Daystar affiliates.

Please Respectful Attention

Please don't Redirected page of Angel Tee because she has still alive on entertaining her carrer, except she has really stop entertaining

Thank You 111.94.14.156 (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Contribute to discussion

Hi Onel5969, recently I listed a bunch of redirects for discussion. They are in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 11 (Thạch Phúc) and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 12 (Ninh Thuận, Bạc Liêu). The issue of these redirects is that, they are formerly about communes that only existed for a short time (8 years) while they ceased to exist for 32 years now. I also stated that even Vietnamese Wikipedia (its native language wikipedia) don't even have information on them (since even if there were, they have been deleted immediately). Those were created in 2009, which is when newly created articles were not strictly reviewed as in present. In fact, the author didn't even cite the sources. I checked their history, and all of them stated that they are currently existing communes (if it was former communes then it will be somehow acceptable to me). If that author created them in 2019 now (like what I'm doing), there will be a bunch of them moved into draftspace immediately. In my opinion, there are still thousands of articles about present-day communes to be created, so those redirects (which shouldn't have existed in the first place) should be get rid of.

Anyway, please participate in those discussion and let me know your opinion. Cn5900 (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cn5900 - I rarely participate in Redirects for deletion (RfD) discussions. In addition, since you came to my talk page and alerted me, I would be doubly hesitant, since that might be construed as canvassing. However, that being said, having looked at the discussion I think Colonies Chris' is incredibly valid, and should be considered. Also, in looking at the discussion, please be careful about adding comments to a discussion without logging in. Several of the IP comments in the discussion bear a great resemblance to you. See WP:SOCKPUPPET. I think your contributions regarding Vietnam are valuable, and would hate to see you blocked over something like this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagging of Mitslal Afras

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Mitslal Afras. I do not think that Mitslal Afras fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because "Mitslal Afras" is the village in the center of mni Ankelalu] making it a plausible redirect as long as there is no separate article. I request that you consider not re-tagging Mitslal Afras for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel - Sometimes it's a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. I completely missed the reference to the village of that name. This editor had created a couple of dozen articles, and then over a hundred redirects to those articles. In each of those instances, the redirects were created to point to one of the items listed in lists within the article, so when checking, I went directly to those sections. Unfortunately, in the Birdwatching section, there is a forest named "Mitlal Afras". I fixed on that, thinking the redirect was a typo, and never checked the beginning of the article. My apologies.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Sagotreespirit. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Katie Branch (Reedy Fork tributary), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

— Sagotreespirit (^talk) 03:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Can I get Sarvesh Amte Reviewed

I would like to have Sarvesh Amte reviewed. I created this page a while back, it has not been reviewed by anyone. Thanks User:Shubhamghodke3904 08:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

What reference do you needed

??? thanks --Caminoderoma (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Franz_Marc_Museum

Can you please take a look at the current state of the draft about the Franz Marc Museum to see that it meets the requirements to be submited in the current form? I added several references from the German press and also a book.Mistico Dois (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice job Mistico Dois - I've reviewed it and moved it to mainspace.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Electoral wards of Southend-on-Sea

I recently came across Chalkwell Ward and questioned whether an electoral ward of a city of 10,000 is notable. It was then pointed out to me that there are other articles about this city in Category:Electoral wards of Southend-on-Sea that had been reviewed. What am I missing given that you and Ymblanter marked these as reviewed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not remember anything about them, but I possibly have not understood that the ward is only for local elections, otherwise it would be certainly notable. You can just AfD them and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49 - Like Ymblanter, don't remember these particular half or dozen so articles in particular. What I can tell you is that about a year, year and a half ago I got into a bit of a debate about a series of stub articles about another group of small electoral areas. I was tagging them with notability, and leaving them unreviewed. Other editors were removing the tags. Rather than edit war, I can't remember whether I left a message on the talk page of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, or whether one of the folks who had removed the tag (I do remember it wasn't the article creator). But they espoused that there was no lower limit to the electoral area to establish notability. We went back and forth a few times, but I couldn't find a rationale in WP:ISNOT which covered why an election wouldn't be allowed, regardless of size. So I tended to err on the side of inclusionism in this instance, since they were cited. But that's the rationale I've been using since. Let me know if there is consensus somewhere to say I'm a knucklehead on this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Well I decided that I was being the knucklehead here because if you and Ymblanter marked them reviewed clearly I was in the wrong. Erring on the side of inclusion makes total sense but I'm going to go ahead and take it to AfD and see what happens. Thanks for the response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea Barkeep49 - can you do me a favor, and if I don't participate in the AfD, can you let me know the outcome? Or post the outcome on NPP talk? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

No promises but only because of my memory. I will do my best to circle back after there's an outcome. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

BTW Barkeep49, sometimes I think I'm brain dead. I'll simply add the AfD to my watchlist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkwell Ward, I guess we have our answer, Barkeep49. Should we post on NPP talk page? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Well I don't think anyone was really asking and you'd clearly decided this correctly. So if you think it would be helpful for sure, otherwise I'm just willing to accept that I was wrong (always a likely outcome given that you and Ymblanter were involved). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't think you were wrong Barkeep49. I think that you rightly questioned something which seemed a stretch. Remember, I was tagging articles with notability and not reviewing them, so I had a similar inkling as you did. My point is that perhaps NPP should have a resource, similar to WP:OUTCOMES, where AfD decisions are publicized. Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I see the utility but I think it could be harmful in the big picture. If NPP marks something as reviewed it's very unlikely to be challenged. This means that a few !voters could be substantially altering our sense of notability on a wide scale. OUTCOMES is a useful NPP tool but is itself a treacherous essay that many dislike. I think letting individual reviewers make their own decisions - while certainly conferring with other NPP - is healthier in the longrun. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Bonin Bough

As a courtesy I tagged you at User_talk:Scope_creep#Bonin_Bough SilvanJo (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Nagprno-Karabakh War

Help! Nagorno-Karabakh War, this page is near to die :)--ჯეოMan (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi ჯეო - not sure what that other editor was attempting to do, but you could have reverted him yourself.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sina Drums page deletion

Page was deleted:seemed promotional. I wrote the page. Under those criteria, any page about a business, political party, person, etc. etc. etc. could be viewed as promotional. Generally Wikipedia is way behind on significant social trends (for example, Sina Drums and many other direct to patron artists). I have no financial or professional interest in Sina Drums so I don't care too much if the page is published or not. But, I don't think that Wikipedia is a community of archeologists, anyone who writes a page has a personal interest in the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBozemanMT (talk • contribs) 01:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You are incorrect, SteveBozemanMT, because it is entirely possible to write acceptable, informative articles about musical performers that comply with the neutral point of view. We have countless thousands of such articles. You wrote this overtly promotional, non-neutral sentence: "In June 2017, the web magazine 'Stars2Come' published a beautiful report entitled 'The Heartbeat Of Music, Sina' about Sina and her great musical abilities, her extraordinary talent and ability especially concerning her favourite musical instrument, the drums." Such a sentence will never be appropriate for an encylopedia article, and if you want to contribute to this encyclopedia, then you must learn to write neutrally and not promotionally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thought I had already thanked you for the above explanation, Cullen328, so thank you. Since I can't see deleted articles, and really don't remember this from a few months ago (I do a bit of reviewing), glad you took the time to write such a pithy, yet in-depth, response. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Several reviews, very grateful. LookLook36 (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries, LookLook36 - keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

UFO (2018 film)

When I reviewed the history I saw it was deleted for lack of sources not copyvio I was under the impression the copyvio was removed. I only restored and expanded the article with sources I did not write the plot summary, I readded it without any vio, but just to know there are a lot more revisions in the history which contained the copyvio plot. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Valoem - I knew it wasn't you who added the copyvio. The original copyvio had been removed, but when the article was worked on later, this new copyvio was added.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Blanking Yūki Yoda

I noticed that you redirected Yūki Yoda back to Nogizaka46, citing notability concerns. However, Yoda does have an independent photobook, which became a national bestseller in Japan, topping Oricon's charts. She also starred in a live-action remake of Mob Psycho 100 outside of the group. Would this make her notable enough outside of the group to warrant an independent article? ◢   Ganbaruby!   (talk to me) 20:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Muscogee (Creek) general elections

Hello, I worked on the 2019 Muscogee (Creek) general elections article and noticed that you flagged the candidate qualification portion of the article as a blatant copyright violation. I understand why this rule is in place but I don't understand how it applies here. The candidate qualification information is a matter of fact no different than what is written in every wikipedia article on elections. Can you clarify how it is that this is a problem in this case and not so in for example the 2020 US presidential election page? Is it just a matter of formatting or is it a copyright violation to state candidate qualification? Would a rewrite of these qualifications in a paragraph format citing the Muscogee constitution remove the copyright concerns? Fadedcorgi (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fadedcorgi - no it's not just a matter of formatting. The info I deleted was simply cut and paste from the source. Now, if this was a US federal government source that wouldn't be a problem since those are allowed to be copied (although WP would require the proper attribution). Take a look at WP:COPYVIO. You can't simply cut and paste from an outside source. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, thanks for the response. I guess my question still remains that if I'm trying to add the candidate qualification information, the only way I can do that is to copy it word by word from the Muscogee constitution. I can't rephrase the qualifications because they are particular and the phrasing of it is critical to understanding who is eligible and who isn't. I get what you mean about copying word by word but I imagine there has to be some sort of an exception when dealing with official government language that is coming from a nation's constitution no? In other words, how would you recommend having that information on the page which is an important component of it? Fadedcorgi (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fadedcorgi - I'm going to ping another editor, Diannaa, who might be better able to answer that question. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fadedcorgi The source webpage is marked as "Copyright Muscogee (Creek) Nation 2016 - All Rights Reserved". If you can't figure out a way to re-word the material in your own words, you will have to leave it out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa - That's what I thought, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Move of Atmosfer Metro station article

I am reaching out in regard to your second revert of my edit to both the [Alborz Metro Station] and [Atmosfer Metro Station] articles. Currently Atmosfer redirects to Alborz. But Atmosfer is the newer and current name. That's why I copied the content of Alborz to Atmosfer, edited the name section accordingly and then set up the redirect from Alborz. Can you explain why you reverted my changes twice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grille Chompa (talk • contribs) 12:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Because what you did is called a cut and paste move, see WP:CUTANDPASTE, and is not allowed on WP. It's not a matter of debate, it's simply not allowed. If you feel a page is incorrectly named, you have to "move" it to the title you think is correct and/or appropriate, that preserves the editing history for attribution purposes. If the move is blocked because there is an existing redirect (which might be the case here), you have to request that the redirect be deleted as per WP:G6.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. This information is super helpful. May I suggest you at least add some of that to your revert comments. As someone not familiar with that level of bureaucracy (even though a wiki oldtimer) it would be helpful to get directions on how to prevent falling into that cut and past reversal trap. Thanks again for your review. Grille Chompa (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Reverting WPXB-LD

Why did you have to redirect WPXB-LD to a list of Daystar affiliates? I am actually a WikiChef (who designs new pages), and that I am broken because you reverted and redirected WPXB-LD. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 11:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep wasting other editors' time by creating articles which don't meet notability criteria?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for helping me when I was a novice Wikipedian! I very much appreciated your help which has encouraged me to continue. Minard38 (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Minard38 - no worries. Thanks for the barnstar, and keep up the good work! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hale global edits

Hi. You rolled back for notoriety only treated to patch. I was about to add the notoriety for marketnews plagiarism scandall and layoffs — covering both sides of pe firms owning news operations. Should I not bother? New to Wikipedia - pls advise. Thank you. CampbellCSmith (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi CampbellCSmith, since you are new, I would recommend using the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. I can move the article into draftspace for you, and there you can work on it, and have more experienced editors give you advice. But I do want to let you know that this can be a very time consuming process, sometimes taking months to get feedback.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hale global edits

Ok let’s do that. Thank you. CampbellCSmith (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletions of both articles Gʻ and Oʻ

I remind you that these two articles should not be treated as redirects - like CentralTime, I am also a Wikichef - a person who creates new Wikipedia articles. These are letters found in the Uzbek alphabet - the French, Russian and Uzbek Wikipedia has Oʻ; the Tatar Wikipedia also has Gʻ. Please kindly do not repeat your same mistake again. FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

if you are a "wikichef", then you should understand that uncited material may be removed at any time, and should not, as per WP:BRD, be re-instated without valid references. A concept both you and CentralTime seem to have difficulty understanding. Until you provide sources, please do not re-add them.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

G` and O` has sources listed onto its bottom. You have not noticed the sources yet. Furthermore, why can Vev (letter) be moved in draftspace?! Ah, you did not notice that a source has been placed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia (talk • contribs) 03:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Both articles have a single source listed. And both sources do not even closely provide enough support to what you put in the article. Please, if you're going to be a "wikichef" (which is a joke, in case you didn't realize), at least learn the policies of WP.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Johnathan Brownlee COI Removal Request

Hello, One15969, I see that the COI has been added back to this recently reviewed and approved article, and I have a question about having it removed again. I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia community, but it was my understanding that the COI flag is intended to ensure that the article is thoroughly reviewed for a neutral point of view, which it was by the reviewer, Utopes. Is it possible for you to review the article as well, and to remove the flag, if you determine that it complies with the Wikimedia content policies? Please advise, thank you. MBAWilbins (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi MBAWilbins - That's not my understanding of the tag, although you did the correct thing and submitted it through AfC. As it says at WP:COI, "Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict." The COI tag is not there to show that there is a bias (there isn't in my opinion), but simply that a major contributor to the article has a COI. This is one of the reasons that COI editing is strongly discouraged. If another editor, without COI, removes the tag, I won't complain about it, but my interpretation of COI is that it should stay. Feel free to ask other editors, or an admin, or even post a question at WP:TEAHOUSE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, One15969. When I was advised on the earliest drafts by the first editor, AngusWoof, his comment was that the COI tag was on "until a neutral editor has scrubbed the article". Utopes is a neutral editor with no COI who checked all of the citations and wrote, "Checked every source, and the article appears to be neutral, as claims are referenced. Removing COI tag." Because of that, could you please go back in and undo your addition of the tag? Please advise, thank you. MBAWilbins (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey MBAWilbins, thanks for reaching out to me! It appears that Onel5969 is correct here. While I did go through your newly created article and remove the wording that was not written in a neutral point of view, you still have a conflict of interest, as you have stated on your talk page. To quote directly from the tag, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." Now, you are the major contributor to the article, and you have stated that you have a close connection with the subject. While the article isn't necessarily biased, as the article has been edited to fit a neutral point of view, the conflict of interest is still present. Unless somebody else without a COI re-writes large portions of the article from scratch, I'm afraid the tag will have to stay. The tag doesn't mean it's a poor article, but it allows readers to be informed of the facts; a primary author has a close connection with a subject. (The reason that I removed the tag was to let other editors know that the article was reviewed for WP:NPOV. Yet, you stated that you had a COI, so I should have left the tag on the page.) Utopes (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

To double down on what Onel5969 suggested, asking for additional help at the Teahouse might be a good start. Maybe somebody could offer you additional insight about COI editing and how to avoid bias in the future! Utopes (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Utopes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, One15969 and Utopes. I circled back with the original editor, AngusWOOF, who suggested that “if they’ve scrubbed the article and checked for neutrality then they can fill in the connected contributor tag ‘checked by’ section on the talk page.”

I read the information in the COI tag link, (Learn more about when and how to remove this template message), and it states that “Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently”.

It is my hope that you will agree that the COI tag can be removed because the issue (neutral point of view) has been addressed.

I appreciate your time and attention to this article. MBAWilbins (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: Gold FM 98.3

Prior to this cut & paste style, I tried to move the article to its designated call sign. But I can't because the call sign contains a redirect to its current article. Is there any other way to reverse their placings? _SUPER ^ASTIG 16:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, Superastig - Do a speedy delete under the WP:G6 criteria, and state the page you want moved there (Gold FM 98.3). That way it preserves the edit history, which is why the cut and paste move isn't allowed.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Toon Tunz

Hello, One15969, why do you delete all my page? The album entred in the italian chart so it respects one of the point to stay on WP, about the sources I insert those that I could put into. There aren't so much on Internet (and even not in English...) Kmo99 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2019 (CET)

Hi Kmo99 - there are two issues with the article. First, you must remember that WP:NALBUM doesn't trump WP:GNG, so if there are few sources regarding the album, it might not pass GNG. But my real issue was that over 90% of the article was uncited. Now, I think you translated it from the Italian WP, but English WP has different standards. Uncited material can be deleted at any time. If you have citations for the rest of the material in the article, that would help.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's right and I'm the one who write the 99% of the italian page. Ok I got it but, on Internet there aren't a lot of sources so I can put some others but they can't cover up all over my text. May I proceed rewriting the page with the notes? Kmo99 (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2019 (CET)

What you have to remember that on English WP, sourcing is very important. That's not the case on many of the other wikis. If there are enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources, than by all means go for it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I added more sources, could you gave a look at the page? I didn't add other text to avoid the elimination. Kmo99 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2019 (CET)

Permission to make separate UNC-TV articles

May I have permission to make the UNC-TV stations into separate articles (redirects)? CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 22:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

No draftifications AGAIN

Please stop draftification of the Armenian alphabet articles. The sources are literally LISTED - but you did not understand such language. Please do not repeat your very big mistake. Again. I have created this article so hard but then you had came and draftified this article the second time. Please, I kindly remind you to stop draftifying my articles. Thanks and do NOT draftifying my articles - it's you who did not understand Armenian-language sites... FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia, please learn how to source an article. Virtually zero percent of the articles you write have proper sourcing. It has nothing to do with understanding a language, it has to do with lack of proper sourcing. Your links simply show that the letters exist. They do not support any of the information you put in your articles. That makes your articles pretty much original research, which is not allowed on WP. I've explained this to you several times. For example, in Draft:Ayb (letter), after the first sentence, nothing is sourced in the entire article. I could remove all the unsourced information, but then all that would be left is a definition, which, as per WP:DICDEF, would need to be turned into a redirect. There is nothing wrong with your writing, the articles are well-structured. But they are unsourced. Please do not add any unsourced information to your articles.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Why was Short U (Cyrillic) drafted, though? It's a much older article, with some sources (although it's [not] (added later) Double sharp (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC) well-sourced). Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Because it is not well-sourced. Just because it has 5 refs doesn't it make it well sourced. I've just removed all uncited material. I moved it to draft to allow FighterSoviet (or some other editor) an opportunity to work on it, since they have expressed an interest in these articles. But, I've simply now removed all uncited material. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's not well-sourced (apologies for missing the word "not", that was a typo). But according to WP:DRAFTIFY that is insufficient reason to draftify it. This is not a new article and neither has there been an ongoing deletion discussion for it. I have restored the material you removed for Short U (Cyrillic) and added some sources. Double sharp (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Armenian I could understand, and those articles could use significant work. However, many of the rarer Cyrillic letters are only used in a few languages, and so there is not all that much to write about them. Short U is one of them, but there are even rarer letters. Why aren't those drafted? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 18:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors, only for myself. When I review an article which is not sourced properly, I either draftify it so that the editor can work on it, or, if there is a valid target, I'll redirect it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)