User talk:Onel5969/Archive 83
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Onel5969. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | → | Archive 90 |
Archive 71:October 2020
Greetings. The discussion page for your nomination here was not created. --Finngall talk 23:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Finngall, thanks for letting me know. Will fix it now. Onel5969 TT me 00:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, buddy,
I know it was deleted but I opened it years later after the kickboxer fought for the ISKA World Title against Florent Kaouachi. Meci de titlu mondial pentru Cristian Ristea. The article is sourced though. So since then there was this important modification which qualifies it as notable on our site. So it passes WP:NKICK today. .karellian-24 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks! No problem. .karellian-24 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Rubbery Figures
Hi there, I see that you took the deletion nomination template off of Rubbery Figures with "closed as Keep", but you didn't actually close it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubbery Figures. The article was only nominated yesterday, so I think it's possible that you closed it by mistake. Would you mind taking a look? — Toughpigs (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Toughpigs, Not sure how that happened. Was doing NPP, and simply clicked "reviewed" to remove it from the queue, since it was AfD. Have restored the template on the page. Onel5969 TT me 14:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
| Thank you for giving me good advice! Cheer VocalIndia (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC) |
- Thank you VocalIndia - keep up the good work.Onel5969 TT me 12:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the article, Baruch Dov Povarsky, you deleted its contents and turned it into a redirect page, saying that there's "no demonstrated notability." However, the article sourced "Make the Torah Sweet". from Hamodia.com, which clearly demonstrated his notability. Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Charlie Smith FDTB, hi. First, a single ref does not indicate notability. Second, interviews are considered primary sources, and don't count towards notability. Third, when using niche specialty sources, you'll need several of those , 3-5, which go in depth about the subject to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 12:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
For keeping the ship afloat the old fashioned way, I award you...
|
The Iron Age hand bailer of Nydam Mose |
| DannyS712 bot III seems be topping the NPR charts these days, but you and a couple of other editors have been nipping at its electronic heels for some time now. Just a few weeks ago we were up at >10,000 articles in the queue - it's been great to see that figure come down, largely due to your amazing contributions. Thanks, and keep it up! GirthSummit (blether) 15:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
- Thanks Girth Summit - just trying to do what I can when I can. Onel5969 TT me 16:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Revert of false Cryptojacking redirect
Why did you put the wrong redirect back into place (source)? --MartinThoma (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- MartinThoma, one source is not enough to show notability. Most likely is, but you need more in-depth sourcing. Onel5969 TT me 16:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- So you prefer to have an obviously wrong (and non-cited) redirect instead of a likely correct (and cited) article? --MartinThoma (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969, I have resolved the G12 concerns in COVID-19 pandemic in Solomon Islands by removing the infringing content and deleting the revisions which contained the text. As a result, the article only has two references and is probably in WP:TOOSOON territory. I wouldn't, however, suggest draftifying at this time and it may be appropriate to redirect again until more sourcing is available. cc Vikram maingi --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- TheSandDoctor, thank you. I agree with your assessment and have redirected to COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania, for the moment. Can be easily resurrected if more info comes to light. Onel5969 TT me 17:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Which redirect suppression criteria applied?
When you moved Talk:Pavas District to Talk:Pavas, you did so without leaving a redirect. Which one of the redirect suppression criteria do you believe applied here? I don't see any that seem to, so for now, I've created the redirect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jackmcbarn, Sorry about that. I think that was a round-robin swap, which I screwed up. I don't do many of them, so after I screwed up I didn't think to check to make sure the talk page had also created a redirect. Hopefully, when I do my next one, I won't screw it up, but if I do, I'll remember to check that the talk page follows. Thanks for catching it. Onel5969 TT me 01:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, that usually ends up happening during a page swap if one of the pages has a talk page and the other doesn't, and you do the moves with the "Move associated talk page" box checked. In those cases, unchecking that box and then manually moving the talk page afterwards avoids the problem. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jackmcbarn, okay, thanks for that extra bit of info. Will remember it. Onel5969 TT me 12:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, that usually ends up happening during a page swap if one of the pages has a talk page and the other doesn't, and you do the moves with the "Move associated talk page" box checked. In those cases, unchecking that box and then manually moving the talk page afterwards avoids the problem. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Crusading
Hi there, you reverted the removal of the redirect on Crusading and the addition of content with the comment that the info was covered in the target. Understandable, if you weren't involved in the many painful discussions on the Crusades talk page about that article's scope. Consensus is (currently) that the scope of that article is the crusades in the Holy Land c1096-1291. That means there is a requirement for an article to cover the paradigm of Crusading that begins before and continues long after that period as well as spreading across Europe, Africa and Asia. Titles were considered less important than content.
On the back of this some of the wider content needs excising from Crusades.
I hope that makes sense? Thank you. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Norfolkbigfish, yes it does make sense, but this seems like quite a bit of a WP:CFORK. There should be a discussion regarding this prior to creating an entire article which is basically the same as another. It would be one thing if there were other examples of Crusading, other than everything that is already contained in the existing article. Right now the discussion is on the content, but there should be a very specific RfC regarding the need to create an entire new page. Onel5969 TT me 19:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- That discussion did take place. Consensus was there was a need for two articles:
- One on Crusades in the Levant between 1096 and 1291;
- One on wider Crusading that included the Northern Crusades, political crusades in Italy, wars called crusades against the Ottomans, wars against heretics, the Reconquista in Spain/Portugal, the European Wars of Religion as well as the theory and ideology.
Admittedly both articles require further work to remove the overlap but this is a start. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Remove Tag
Hi sir, can i know why you request to delete the articles Piriyadha Varam Vendum (TV series) and other articles. Parkijolli (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Because they were created by a banned user.Onel5969 TT me 11:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sir Then, like so many articles were created by a many banned user, then u tag delete for that articles also?? Parkijolli (talk)
- Yes, especially when there has been so much work done by socks of the banned editor.Onel5969 TT me 12:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sir, how sir, if it is created by a banned user also, that articles are sourced, please remove from the tag sir. Parkijolli (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Parkijolli, sourcing is irrelevent. If a user is banned, they are banned.Onel5969 TT me 12:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sir, then like user:Arnav19 had so many sockpuppet users, and they created so many articles. Parkijolli (talk)
- They have to have been created after the user was blocked. So if any of his socks created articles after he was banned in June 2018, those articles are subject to deletion.Onel5969 TT me 12:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- If they banned also, that article means a content know sir. Please sir Parkijolli (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- They have to have been created after the user was blocked. So if any of his socks created articles after he was banned in June 2018, those articles are subject to deletion.Onel5969 TT me 12:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sir, then like user:Arnav19 had so many sockpuppet users, and they created so many articles. Parkijolli (talk)
- Parkijolli, sourcing is irrelevent. If a user is banned, they are banned.Onel5969 TT me 12:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sir Then, like so many articles were created by a many banned user, then u tag delete for that articles also?? Parkijolli (talk)
Premios CEC
Hello Onel5969, you recently reverted the edit I made on the Premios CEC page, essentially deleting an entire article's worth of work in just one click. Your argument is that there aren't sufficient in-depth citations to support the article. I would contend that there are various online publications which could support each mention of an award win in the article, and instead of deleting the page, you could have tried to improve it by looking up a few of these, or simply added a hatnote stating that the article needed further citations. I understand where you're coming from, presumably, in your attempt to assure that Wikipedia isn't cluttered up with poorly cited articles, and I've done my share of this as well, but the Premios are the oldest film award ceremony in Spain, second in prominence only to the Goya Awards, and as such, I would say they deserve their own page. Perhaps you could also be a little more circumspect about deleting the work of others in such a wholesale way without first trying to make improvements to said work or seeking dialogue with the author of the work. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Revirvlkodlaku, sorry, not my job to work on articles in which I have zero interest. The work is not gone, it is still in the history. If you want to work on article to bring it up to mainspace standards, the place to do that is in draft. If they are the oldest film awards in Spain, then they certainly meet gng, and so an article is warranted. However, uncited material may be removed at any time, and as per WP:BURDEN, should not be returned without references from reliable sources. Onel5969 TT me 13:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Onel5969, how were the references I provided in the article not reliable? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Revirvlkodlaku, never said they weren't. Onel5969 TT me 16:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Onel5969, how were the references I provided in the article not reliable? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
my article
Please check out my article, I have been waiting for a long time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatowiki725 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, hope you are doing great! How does Nino Cassanello passes WP:PROF ? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- TheBirdsShedTears, Hi. While NPROF #5, states "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment...", in practical terms however, at AfD, if an individual achieves a full professorship at an accredited university, they survive the AfD. Onel5969 TT me 14:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- That being said, I found this thread, which seems to make my reasoning faulty. Sometimes it is difficult to maneuver through what different groups of people want, and what actually occurs on WP. Feel free to put the tag back, or even take it to AfD if you feel strongly. And thanks for your contributions to WP.Onel5969 TT me 14:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Onel
What I understand from the admins is that wp:toosoon is applied to the proposed arenas, and that category might disappear. The arenas and stadiums UNDER CONSTRUCTION like SC-Stadion are ok. If a building is under construction normally it will be completed. Rostadia2012 (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Rostadia2012, but not necessarily. Onel5969 TT me 01:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hello Onel5969,
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| I was quite pleased to be notified that you had reviewed my article Yorkton Film Festival Golden Sheaf Award - Indigenous. Thank you! |
Kind regards, LorriBrown (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, LorriBrown. Keep up the good work.Onel5969 TT me 01:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Da'Vonne Rogers
Hey, so I've noticed that you keep undoing my actions. I've also seen that you asked for more info and I have provided. It just seems to me that you don't want to keep her page because she hasn't done anything after the series. However, most houseguests with an actual page have done less than she has. Let me know what you want from me so the page can be kept. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryrymitchell (talk • contribs) 01:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ryrymitchell, I want her to have notability outside of the series. But she doesn't. Onel5969 TT me 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
She does, she wasn't just on Big Brother, she was on The Challenge as well, and on multiple small reality shows as well. Maybe we can give another reviewer a shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryrymitchell (talk • contribs) 17:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Stephanie Cmar
Hi,
I noticed you made the page Stephanie Cmar into a redirect to Top Chef: All-Stars L.A. because "no notability outside show". I was wondering why you thought this was the case. The page clearly showed that she was a contestant on two other seasons of Top Chef (ie. not just notable for one event/one season of Top Chef). There are many sources referring to Cmar (albeit, not cited in the previous version of the article) that predate Top Chef: All-Stars L.A. by several years. Boston Magazine 2014 Article/Other Boston Magazine 2014 Article, 2016 Eater article, 2014 NYT article supporting that Cmar competed in Top Chef season 10, 2017 Mic Article supporting Cmar's notability for Top Chef season 11 calling her "one of the most screwed-over contestants in show history". I could list more, but I don't want to overwhelm you.
I appreciate that your editing is bold, but I think that in light of the existence of such sources it doesn't make sense to have Cmar redirect to Top Chef: All-Stars LA. If you agree that the redirect is possibly inappropriate in light of these sources, I would be more than happy to go back and add the sources and their information to the article Samsmachado (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Samsmachado, hi. In reviewing, I have to use my judgement, and in this case, imho, there is no notability outside of the Chef shows. But I'm definitely not infallible. Feel free to revert, and if you do, I'll leave it in the queue and let another reviewer take a shot at it. They may see it differently than. It happens all the time. But, know that my redirect was not a comment on your editing. The article was well written, well-structured, well-formatted, and well referenced. Onel5969 TT me 15:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey Onel, need your help!
I have recently created a page Neeraj Udhwani keeping all the guidelines in mind and doing so. So I think it will take much time to be reviewed by someone, so if you could help review it, I will be very thankful! Adnanjavidkhan1 (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Adnanjavidkhan1, hi. It's in the queue. There's a huge backlog. Be patient, someone will get to it. Onel5969 TT me 12:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
UPTOWN! Knauer Performing Arts Center speedy deletion
I went back to revert it from published to sandbox to fix several issues and it was gone. I have spent a couple of hours now and have learned much. I put this site in sandbox over a year ago and came back and pushed publish too quickly. Can I get this back in sandbox? Or do I need to start from scratch? Kanedbender (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Kanedbender, you'd have to ask the admin who actually deleted the article. It depends on why it was deleted, since you didn't provide a link, I'm not sure what the rationale was. But if it was for a copyvio, then you probably can't get it restored. WP is very strict about copyright violations. Onel5969 TT me 13:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
College sports
I saw you write somewhere that you're staying away from reviewing college sports bios. IMO the issue there is that the routine level of coverage for top players at the college level is basically indistinguishable from pro coverage for all but the most elite "changed the history of the sport" players. If GNG is supposed to approximate the level of coverage that makes a subject of encyclopedic, historical interest, the bar is set far too low for athletes. signed, Rosguill talk 02:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Rosguill, you and I are on the same wavelength. But I get tired of the incessant arguing with a small group of fanboys. I'm quickly approaching that same point regarding fictional characters, who only get coverage in industry magazines, which are then used to show GNG. But I figure there are plenty of other articles to review, right? Keep up the good work. After my "vacation", I am heartened to see that there are now more than 2 or 3 of us that are pretty active. Onel5969 TT me 12:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- With the sports articles, I'm inclined to live and let live and just mark them approved if they meet the guideline, encyclopedic value aside. Fictional characters I feel like I'm usually a bit stricter on, since it's easy enough to collect non-notable characters at a character list page. The one topic I've given up on (more or less preemptively) is professional wrestling, because I genuinely can't tell what a reliable source for that would be. signed, Rosguill talk 16:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Rosguill, I am with you on that as well, although I treat those like actor/television show articles (which they kind of are). But when they don't meet notability standards, the grief from fanboys is extreme. Onel5969 TT me 03:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- With the sports articles, I'm inclined to live and let live and just mark them approved if they meet the guideline, encyclopedic value aside. Fictional characters I feel like I'm usually a bit stricter on, since it's easy enough to collect non-notable characters at a character list page. The one topic I've given up on (more or less preemptively) is professional wrestling, because I genuinely can't tell what a reliable source for that would be. signed, Rosguill talk 16:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much!
Onel5969, 
Thank you very much! for reviewing the Emerging Filmmaker award page. LorriBrown (talk)
Redirect in The Karski Report
Hi Onel5969, Recently you have change the stub content of The Karski Report to a redirect to his author Claude Lanzmann arguing not WP:NFILM. I am not agree with your criteria, bc I think that the article meets the needed attributes for notability : "2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: * Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." --> There are non-trivial articles in "The Guardian" here, "The New Yorker" here, "Variety" here, "Indiwire" here, etc. The documentary was also projected at the Berlinale (Berlin film festival) , and at The Lincoln center. I know the article is just a stub now, and must grow maybe as the French equivalent fr:Le Rapport Karski (film), but the subject meets the notability criteria to have his own article. Could you please reconsider your decision and restore the stub content ? Thanks for your time to check it. Alexcalamaro (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Alexcalamaro, hi. Yes, if you add those sources, it does show notability, absolutely. Onel5969 TT me 11:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fine. I will add them. Thanks a lot. Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Ryan-Mark Parsons
Hello. Thank you for making the recent edit on Ryan-Mark Parsons. There is some confusion, as I didn't want to reopen nomination for deletion discussion, as this has already taken place recently. There is a user who has created an account with the purpose to target and vandalise the page. They inserted the proposal for deletion. Do you have any advice on how to deal with this user who seems intent on targeting and vandalising the page? JPA24 (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- JPA24, well, the first thing I would say is stop putting unencyclopedic material in articles. Even in the AfD it was noted that a large portion of the article was based on tabloid coverage, which should never be used in blp's. This can get infuriating to editors who look at WP as an encyclopedia, rather than a fan magazine or fan wiki. Second, just maintain your calm, don't try to bludgeon people, just state your case. It looks like the other editor understands they can't re-open the discussion, and instead is editing it to trim the tabloid stuff. Once they have removed it, remember that as per WP:BURDEN, you can't re-add it, unless you do so with a reliable source. You brought them up at AIV (although I'm not sure that is the correct venue), so an admin will take a look. Again, be patient, and be wary of showing WP:OWNERSHIP tendencies. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 12:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I'm trying to improve the article everyday and I can now see the user has made changes that I think are objective and overall improves the quality of the article. If you look at the page history and edit summaries, I'm sure you can agree there seems to be some kind of targeting taking place. Of course, I see many people edit this page, but never with the same fury behind some of the edits this user is making. Plus, you can see they created an account to initially blank the page, as it was protected, it wasn't possible to do this via IP editing. Even the edit history is bizarre, they have just made many changes and now reverted the edits, just seems very suspect. JPA24 (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Question
Hello Onel5969, what do you think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zvi_Sever ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.180.134 (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Jett Rebel article
Hi,
I saw that you took away an article about an album by Jett Rebel that I wrote. I don't really understand why this happened, since I followed all the guidelines? I'm always careful to follow the rules, and I'd like to learn how to prevent this from happening again. The image is legal and meets all requirements. Hopefully you can help me? thank you in advance!--Esther Claassen (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Jett Rebel Live Forever Album cover 2019.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Jett Rebel Live Forever Album cover 2019.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thevidiya paiyan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:88D:2692:C5F9:76CB:7E56:A8CD (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Bad redirects
Sorry Onel, but I've again found you making bad redirects. NiziU's Make You Happy topped various charts in Japan, Marie Ueda's Heartbreaker reached the top 40 of the charts in Japan and has enough news sources, as does the song "Basquiat" by Pentagon. Please be more careful redirecting sources with a majority of non-English language sources in future. You've done this before, and it really looks like because you don't understand those languages, you believe they must not be notable topics even when there's enough. I could be wrong, but I've said this to you before and this is again what it looks like. There are enough there on both to assert the releases' notability independent of their charting—even if, admittedly, the charting information was absent. The albums Dark Hearts by Annie and Album No. 8 by Katie Melua could have more news sources present on their articles, but each album is definitely notable. Both albums are out tomorrow (August 16), and Melua's album is guaranteed to chart based on her profile and past success, and even if it's not demonstrated on the article, I can see Annie's album has received extensive coverage in Norwegian media. These are definitely cases for Template:Sources exist. I don't wish to have an argument with you over whether you consider each to be notable because I'm not as active as I used to be, and also because I know you don't think they are notable—you redirected them. But if you disagree with my reverting you on each, the next step is AFD, not to re-revert and restore the redirect. I'm just asking you to be a bit more thorough or maybe do some searches for sources for the topics yourself in future. Maybe tag them with Template:Sources exist if you find the sources and don't want to add them yourself, instead of boldly redirecting so much. Thanks. Ss112 16:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, first, make "a chart" is not making the national chart. The first article mentioned above did not mention or reference the Oricon chart, which you have subsequently added. Without that, and the basic PR articles as references, the redirect was warranted. Same with the Basquiat article, which you have now added the Gaon citation. Your second mentioned article, still doesn't reference the claim to notability, and again, mostly PR articles about the album (the better refs are about songs, not the album). You also reverted an article about a film, using the nalbum rationale. Which really doesn't make sense. In the review process, we are looking at the article as it exists. If an article asserts notability, then that template would be appropriate, but when, as these articles stood prior to your good work on them, redirecting them is entirely appropriate. I didn't prod or AfD them, because I thought there might be other information out there which would make them valid standalone articles. On some of your reverts, you have put them in shape to stand. Your accusatory and denigrating tone is a bit of a put-off by the way.Onel5969 TT me 16:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Homotopy associative algebra
Hi @Onel5969:,
I noticed you added a citations needed reference to the top of the page of Homotopy associative algebra. I'm confused where the issue is. I've added plenty of citations in the article, so can you point to a location where you think there's a problem? Wundzer (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wundzer, hi. I don't have the expertise to evaluate the content of the article, although it looks very well done, but anywhere you make an assertion there should be a citation (else it could be viewed as original research). For example, in the "Examples" section you do have 3 refs, but the first two are totally unsourced. And the fourth, looks like a lot of that is unsourced, as the two refs seem to only be referencing the first statement there. I think it might be better if you source entire sections, if appropriate. Not sure this helps, but you might want to reach out to the project page for help. If you do, please let me know, I'd like to see what they say. Onel5969 TT me 20:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Onel5969 Ah, okay. I have entire sections sourced already, but I think there's a barrier since you aren't familiar with the material. For example, in the "Understanding the coherence conditions" the subsections all reference the same pages in the same article. Also, all of the non-trivial/non-obvious examples are sourced. Moreover, the assertion of the first example is demonstrated above in the coherence conditions section. Wundzer (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wundzer, cool. Then feel free to remove my tag. Onel5969 TT me 20:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm glad we were able to work this out. I'll put the core information of this thread in the talk page in case someone else runs into the same issue. Wundzer (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wundzer, cool. Then feel free to remove my tag. Onel5969 TT me 20:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Onel5969 Ah, okay. I have entire sections sourced already, but I think there's a barrier since you aren't familiar with the material. For example, in the "Understanding the coherence conditions" the subsections all reference the same pages in the same article. Also, all of the non-trivial/non-obvious examples are sourced. Moreover, the assertion of the first example is demonstrated above in the coherence conditions section. Wundzer (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Stop undoing changes on PeteStrumentals 3
You don't seem to even understand. Pete Rock said on video that he's dropping PeteStrumentals 3 in December. If you didn't watch that video on youtube, you need to watch again. He gave out latest updates on his new project. So please stop with the reverts. smdfh Ceedub88 02:24, 15 October 2020
- No Ceedub88, it is you who doesn't understand. Please review notability criteria. You've been reverted by 3 different editors, and are currently engaged in an edit war, and are currently in violation of WP:3RR. Your reasoning is irrelevant. It has to pass notability criteria. If you continue to edit war, it could result in you being blocked from editing.Onel5969 TT me 03:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
removal of AfD discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teezio Acafix2 (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I actually think there is a lot of merit towards a new article, but it kind of needs a native French editor to go through the other cases and link them together. Maybe you can understand where I am coming from regarding that article. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Govvy, I hear you. I think there might be an article about the serial killer, which would tie in with the other murders, but none of the individual murders appear to be notable by themselves. Onel5969 TT me 15:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I can't seem to find any article for the serial killer, if there already is one, then I think this merits a soft-redirect. Govvy (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Govvy, perhaps. But I am not very conversant with soft-redirects. I do like your suggestion on the AfD, however. Onel5969 TT me 15:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I can't seem to find any article for the serial killer, if there already is one, then I think this merits a soft-redirect. Govvy (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Moving Page
Page Title Wakoklon Heelel Thilel salai Amailon Pukok Puya is correct term. The name Wakoklon Heelel Thilen salai Amailon Pukok Puya is not a proper term as there is spelling difference between Thilel and Thilen.Afingba Mangang (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Told you
I told you before Pete is dropping PeteStrumentals 3 in DECEMBER!!!. i would greatly appreciated if you would PLEASE STOP WITH REVERTS!! Pete already gave out the good news on his upcoming project. OK. thank you!!!! Ceedub88 17:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
(Per WP:DABMENTION) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fairview_Drive&oldid=983048076
A brownie for you!
|
Was perusing edit histories and saw your name again, thrilled to see that you're back! Keep up the good work. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC) |
- Thank you for your kind words, CaptainEek. Onel5969 TT me 23:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Review?
Hi. I'm not aware of my edits ever being "reviewed" in the past several years, and now it's becoming an almost common occurrence. Still, over a dozen articles at once is very unusual. What does this "reviewing" consist of? I honestly have no idea. Thanks for explaining. Arminden (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Arminden, hi. It's not your edits which are being reviewed, but anytime you create an article or a redirect, those are subject to review. I review a few articles and redirects every day. Redirects are obviously simpler, and that consists of first, making sure they make sense. For example John J. Smith redirecting to John Smith. That's simple, that makes sense, all you have to do is check to make sure John Smith's middle initial is J. Other times it's not that clear cut, so you simply check to make sure the title of the redirect is mentioned on the target. Articles are more complex. You have to check for notability, copyvio, formatting issues, is titled correctly. Then based on your review, you either mark it reviewed, tag it with an issues tag (e.g. tagging it needing more references) and mark it reviewed, or mark it for deletion either through the CSD, Prod, or AfD process. You can find out more in detail at: WP:NPP. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 23:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I see, thank you! Learning all the time. Now I might bother you with technical questions if I ever get stuck with a new article or redirect. – I know, "you give them a finger and they want the whole hand" :)) Arminden (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Arminden, lol. No worries. If I know the answer, I'll always try to help out. Onel5969 TT me 22:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I see, thank you! Learning all the time. Now I might bother you with technical questions if I ever get stuck with a new article or redirect. – I know, "you give them a finger and they want the whole hand" :)) Arminden (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Review Page
Hi please review this page Dulhan (Drama) Kaleem Bhatti Talk 14:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Kaleem Bhatti, There's a huge backlog, be patient. I can tell you that articles with a single citation are given a very low priority. Onel5969 TT me 14:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. You ask for additional sources. Please tell me, which sentence or part of the article exactly needs additional sources. A general statement like this does not make sense. Thank you, --Gereon K. (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Gereon K., Anything you assert in the article needs a source. Since most of the article is unsourced, most of the article needs sourcing. Onel5969 TT me 15:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Moving PEPPOL to Draft
It seems to me that based on the [[1]] an article shouldn't be moved to the Draft namespace if someone is actively working on it. It seems pretty clear in the edit history that the article was under progress by myself. Why did you decide to move it to Drafts without contacting me? --ZeiP (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- ZeiP, How would any other editor know the article was being actively worked on? That's number one. Number two, the proper place to "actively work on" developing an article is in draft space. Onel5969 TT me 12:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, at least two things: I mentioned that I was working on it in the edit history: ”ZeiP moved page Draft:PEPPOL to PEPPOL: Good start, will expand the article next.” I also edited it again in eight minutes after that, 23 minutes before your move. Is the documentation I linked above incorrect regarding the criteria for moving an article to Draft space or not? Am I reading the criteria incorrectly when I think the move was not done in the correct procedure or criteria? --ZeiP (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) ZeiP, draftification is a common outcome of new page patrol for undersourced articles with potential. The procedural question probably hinges on exactly how one judges 'actively worked on', which is rather subjective; 23 minutes would have been long enough to add some reliable, secondary and independent sources, which that draft is entirely lacking. I'd urge you not to worry too much about that procedural question, and just focus on adding sources and content to the draft, then move it back into article space when it's ready. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- 23 minutes is quite short a limit for actively worked on; at least for me it takes often more than that to find good sources etc. There is a clear procedure: ”Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD. The etiquette about moving pages during deletion and review discussions is also good advice.” IMO it is not really a good practice to move a page someone is just working on against the procedures and then try to downplay the procedure by telling them ”not to worry too much about that procedural question, and just focus on adding sources”. I'd urge you to read the procedure I pointed to you and update it if the published procedure doesn't work for you instead of bypassing it. To me moving the page, leaving a very short and somewhat rude summary and downplaying criticism concerning the action is far from a welcoming attitude and I certainly don't feel like contributing to the article until the matter is resolved. --ZeiP (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- ZeiP, I'm sorry if you're upset or offended by my advice - and I'm certain that Onel5969 meant no offence to you when he moved the page back to draft. As I said, the question of how long is long enough is rather subjective, and different people could feel differently about it in good faith - there is no need for us to be criticising each other at all. Now, if I had chosen to work on that draft, I'd have looked for the sources before moving the draft into article space - how else could I have satisfied myself that it was a suitable subject for an article? GirthSummit (blether) 13:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, the other editor is correct that once an objection is raised, I should move it back. It's a shame they don't understand the correct use of draftspace, nor of proper talkpage etiquette. I didn't take the comment above as an actual objection to the move, simply bickering about process. Now that they have made their objection clear I'll move it back to mainspace. Onel5969 TT me 13:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- 23 minutes is quite short a limit for actively worked on; at least for me it takes often more than that to find good sources etc. There is a clear procedure: ”Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD. The etiquette about moving pages during deletion and review discussions is also good advice.” IMO it is not really a good practice to move a page someone is just working on against the procedures and then try to downplay the procedure by telling them ”not to worry too much about that procedural question, and just focus on adding sources”. I'd urge you to read the procedure I pointed to you and update it if the published procedure doesn't work for you instead of bypassing it. To me moving the page, leaving a very short and somewhat rude summary and downplaying criticism concerning the action is far from a welcoming attitude and I certainly don't feel like contributing to the article until the matter is resolved. --ZeiP (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) ZeiP, draftification is a common outcome of new page patrol for undersourced articles with potential. The procedural question probably hinges on exactly how one judges 'actively worked on', which is rather subjective; 23 minutes would have been long enough to add some reliable, secondary and independent sources, which that draft is entirely lacking. I'd urge you not to worry too much about that procedural question, and just focus on adding sources and content to the draft, then move it back into article space when it's ready. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, at least two things: I mentioned that I was working on it in the edit history: ”ZeiP moved page Draft:PEPPOL to PEPPOL: Good start, will expand the article next.” I also edited it again in eight minutes after that, 23 minutes before your move. Is the documentation I linked above incorrect regarding the criteria for moving an article to Draft space or not? Am I reading the criteria incorrectly when I think the move was not done in the correct procedure or criteria? --ZeiP (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Merging Nanya Technology Corporation to Formosa_Plastics_Group
Hi, I would prefer Nanya not being merged under their "parent" company, as they do completely different things and operate in different industries. That would be like merging merill lynch under BofA, or JP morgan under JS morgan & co. Keiichi88 (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keiichi88, please see the discussion at Talk:Formosa Plastics Group.Onel5969 TT me 11:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Stadium Goods
I dont mean to further increase your burden when youre already busy, so there's no need to hurry on this, but ...
is it really possible that a company worth over $250 million could fail WP:GNG? I am really surprised. I think we are in the age now where brick-and-mortar stores are no longer the best measure of a company's size. After all, an online retailer may well have no physical stores at all. But I trust your judgment.
Best regards,
—Soap— 22:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Soap, I understand your point. My issue was more with the current sourcing, and quite frankly, with the blocked editor issue. I've self-reverted. Onel5969 TT me 12:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Rebekah Graf
Hello, this article was reviewed three months ago. If you feel the article warrants speedy deletion or a redirect, please go through the normal procedure and nominate it as such. Thank you. Larry Dunn (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Larry Dunn, actually, it wasn't reviewed until 10/17, when I reviewed it. And now it is back in the queue to be reviewed again. I'll let another reviewer have a look at it. Onel5969 TT me 12:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Ruchira Panda
Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ruchira Panda, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's a lot more sources this time, making it sufficiently different to need to go back to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK 09:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ged UK, thanks for letting me know. Onel5969 TT me 12:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Nittany Lion Wrestling Club
Hey! I saw that you reviewed some of my articles, thank you very much. I added sources to Nittany Lion Wrestling Club and everything that appears in the article can now be found in the them. Should I remove the template message? Thanks. PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- PabloLikesToWrestle, absolutely. And in the future, if you've made the corrections, you don't have to ask. Most editors will look at the page if their tag is removed, and if they don't think the problem is addressed, they'll revert your removal, and explain why in the edit summary. But thanks for asking, and keep up the good work. Onel5969 TT me 15:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I saw you PRODded this; the creator removed it. I have also had some issues with the article. I don't know if I support deletion since I haven't looked at all the sources, but I suppose AfD is the next step. If you go that route, please ping me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Drmies, consider yourself pinged. Another 1 of two I just AfD'd. Although you get a lot of local or niche editors who climb on to AfD's like this to keep them. Onel5969 TT me 16:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
i want to talk to you
hello sir/mdm i am not angry at you, but i felt discouraged. the three articles i created are nominated for deletion, including the nonoi murder and the kovan double murders which you nominated. the third was the death of darren ng wei jie.
i only started out a newcomer this year. i am thinking should i continue as a editor of wikipedia since my articles got nominated for deletion within a short time since creation, having thought of those articles that stayed for a long time but never get nominated for deletion
i felt depressed because the effort i put in in creating a new article seem to amount to nothing the moment it is deleted i really feel i should voice out to you at least, because i want to let you know how i feel. i really feel depressed about it, even feel like despising myself for being incapable. i am sorry. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi NelsonLee20042020. First, you're articles are very well sourced, well-written, and nicely structured. Second, I'm not fallible. They may survive at AfD. Regardless of the outcome, take a look at the comments made and learn from them, both the positive and negative. In fact, pay more attention to the negatives, they will help you hone your skill in choosing subject matter to write about. When it comes to news stories, it often times boils down to lasting effects. For example, if a murder, which otherwise might have simply been another run-of-the-mill murder tragedy, spurs on significant litigation, then it would be worthwhile writing about. But even a story which is in the headlines for months, even up to a year depending on the investigation and trial, might not be that long-lasting. Many times it's a judgement call. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 03:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, One15969. I have read your response. I think what you said was right. Your encouragement and what you said about learning from the negative criticisms, I understand what you mean and felt better thinking about it. Thank you, it is great talking to you. I got to hear helpful advice from you. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Cool... keep up the good work. Onel5969 TT me 12:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Improved Thomas Reynolds (priest)
Hi Onel5969! I've improved Thomas Reynolds (priest) since your last visit. If you want to give it a look... --Clementeste(Talk) 09:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Clementeste, hi and nice job. Just remember that anything that isn't cited can be removed at any time by any editor, and then can't be re-added unless a valid source is provided. Right now, while improved, there are still parts of the article which need citations (e.g. the end of the imprisonment section, and much of the trial and execution section. But keep up the good work. Onel5969 TT me 12:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- OK, than you, I'll work on it! --Clementeste(Talk) 14:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Wendy bain
You have reviewed and said this page would be deleted. Wendy Bain is a working actress and screen writer in Los Angeles - married to Sam Bain - what more does this page need in order to remain? Could you let me know in layman’s terms please. Noam25 (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Noam25, doubtful it can remain. There are literally thousands of working actors like Wendy Bain. If she had starring roles in two major films/tv shows, that would qualify her, but she hasn't. The Frontline piece is nice, but you'd need at least another 2-3 like that in order to show notability. Articles need to be in-depth, and about her. For example the Broadway World article is not in-depth enough, and is as much about her play as about her. It might also be argued that it is purely a promotional piece. Articles from sources like Saatchiart and BritsinLA are primary sources, and don't go to notability at all. Same with the Fringe Festival articles. The Guardian piece isn't really about her at all. I did a search, see here, and couldn't find the type of in-depth articles necessary to show she passes GNG. I'd like to see the article stay, my cousin was the creative director at BergenPAC for a long time, before leaving for Palm Springs about 10 years ago, and my grandparents are from Gwent (Abertillery and Six Bells to be specific). If you can find more in-depth articles about her, please add them to the article. If you do, ping me here, and I'll take another look. In the meantime, I could redirect to the husband's article, or move it into draftspace, if you'd like. Onel5969 TT me 14:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Solidago lateriflora revert
Hello! I see you reverted my change of the Solidago lateriflora redirect page. I was trying to change the redirect to a DAG because Solidago lateriflora was first used by Linnaeus in 1753 to define what is now named Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. Later, the name was used by Raf. from non-published material of DC. to describe Solidago caesia. Without the official full taxonomic names that include the authors, Solidago lateriflora is ambiguous. Using Solidago lateriflora to redirect to Solidago caesia is correct but not complete -- it leaves out the also correct basionym of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. I think a DAG is in order, but perhaps I did this incorrectly. Could you help me out? It is my first DAG and I studied the different instructional pages before making the changes. Thank you in advance. --Eewilson (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Eewilson, no worries. I wasn't sure what you were attempting to do with the dab, which is why I reverted. Dabs should be as easy to figure out as possible. I've gone and created it for you. I might suggest that you put a brief blurb on each of the target pages explaining not just this synonym, but all the synonyms I see listed in their infoboxes. I think that would be pretty cool. But it can't be too technical, cause then you'd lose your average reader. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 TT me 12:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Onel5969 That's something similar to what I'm thinking for the Symphyotrichum lateriflorum page as I develop it, possibly in a history section. Thank you for your review and your input, and for creating the dab page! --Eewilson (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Slashme. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Trend Receiver, 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.)
Slashme (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Slashme, hi there. Any particular reason? Onel5969 TT me 13:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I saw the green tick and thought that an edit I did had somehow made it reviewed: I just looked at it, saw that the references were mostly very close to the creator of the topic, saw the mass of business jargon and the powerpoint slides as references and thought "this is spam masquerading as social science, more people should take a look." I hadn't noticed that it had survived an AfD. It's a promotional and problematic article IMHO. --Slashme (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Slashme, I agree. I must have stared at the article and the AfD for 20 minutes going over the arguments and sourcing. It does seem promotional, but there is enough sourcing, imho, to show it's a valid subject, so I marked it reviewed, but you're right, it's the most tenuous of reviews. I was thinking of resubmitting it to AfD to get more input, but I noticed that AllyD, an editor I really respect commented on the AfD, but didn't actually !vote. Not sure if resubmitting it would do any good. Onel5969 TT me 13:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- One note: the authors of the article tried first to get it onto the German Wikipedia, where it was deleted for lack of notability in 2016 and then speedied when someone tried to recreate it. They seem to be venue-shopping. --Slashme (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Slashme, I agree. I must have stared at the article and the AfD for 20 minutes going over the arguments and sourcing. It does seem promotional, but there is enough sourcing, imho, to show it's a valid subject, so I marked it reviewed, but you're right, it's the most tenuous of reviews. I was thinking of resubmitting it to AfD to get more input, but I noticed that AllyD, an editor I really respect commented on the AfD, but didn't actually !vote. Not sure if resubmitting it would do any good. Onel5969 TT me 13:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I saw the green tick and thought that an edit I did had somehow made it reviewed: I just looked at it, saw that the references were mostly very close to the creator of the topic, saw the mass of business jargon and the powerpoint slides as references and thought "this is spam masquerading as social science, more people should take a look." I hadn't noticed that it had survived an AfD. It's a promotional and problematic article IMHO. --Slashme (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
British Phycological Society page
Many thanks for reviewing the new page British Phycological Society. Much appreciated!--MerielGJones (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- MerielGJones, keep up the good work. Onel5969 TT me 00:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Contested deletion New message from Ampimd
Message added 22:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for reviewing the page of Franklin Cudjoe. Unfortunately there were a few issues related to copyright infringement. Some of the things are names of institutions, companies and titles which can't actually be changed. Furthermore the issues raised on the article has been rechecked and so I suggest you review it again and crosscheck. The article is a needed one for Wikipedia GH and shouldnt be deleted due to the issues raised. Issues relating to the article should be pointed out for furhter correction and review. Thanks. Ampimd (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Your deletion of the UWA Law School page
Hi Onel5969. Is there any particular reason why you decided to delete the University of Western Australia Law School page and replace it with a redirect to the main page for the University of Western Australia? Among the Group of Eight universities, the other seven law schools have their own Wikipedia pages, as do countless other law schools worldwide, so I don't see what you found objectionable about this specific page. --Drevolt (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Drevolt, Please see WP:GNG. WP:OSE doesn't really matter. If you can show enough in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources, than it will pass GNG, which in its current state, it simply did not. Onel5969 TT me 00:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on the university so I'm not the right person to expand the page, but the precedent set by literally every other comparable law school in Australia suggests that the law school is notable in its own right and ought to have its own page, just as the other seven law schools listed on that page do. The fact that a page is a stub which needs more sources doesn't automatically show that it doesn't meet notability guidelines. --Drevolt (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Drevolt, I don't have a problem with the law school having it's own page, as long as it is referenced properly and shows notability. Neither of which the current incarnation did. Onel5969 TT me 21:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- The concern I'm trying to raise is that many comparable articles, such as the one for Adelaide Law School, are similarly in need of more sources and further expansion, and in their current state don't have independent reliable sources establishing their notability any more than the UWA Law School page did. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I modeled that article after the article for another comparable law school. For the sake of consistency, I don't see why this particular stub needed to be deleted when many similar articles apparently don't. It would at least be consistent to go through all of these comparable articles and merge most or all of them with the articles of their parent institutions, although I'm personally of the opinion that this would be a bad idea (and would involve a tremendous amount of work). But I don't see how it makes sense to get rid of only this article and leaving many others as they were. --Drevolt (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Drevolt, and as I've said before, that's an WP:OSE argument, which isn't really valid. Onel5969 TT me 00:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- The concern I'm trying to raise is that many comparable articles, such as the one for Adelaide Law School, are similarly in need of more sources and further expansion, and in their current state don't have independent reliable sources establishing their notability any more than the UWA Law School page did. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I modeled that article after the article for another comparable law school. For the sake of consistency, I don't see why this particular stub needed to be deleted when many similar articles apparently don't. It would at least be consistent to go through all of these comparable articles and merge most or all of them with the articles of their parent institutions, although I'm personally of the opinion that this would be a bad idea (and would involve a tremendous amount of work). But I don't see how it makes sense to get rid of only this article and leaving many others as they were. --Drevolt (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Drevolt, I don't have a problem with the law school having it's own page, as long as it is referenced properly and shows notability. Neither of which the current incarnation did. Onel5969 TT me 21:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on the university so I'm not the right person to expand the page, but the precedent set by literally every other comparable law school in Australia suggests that the law school is notable in its own right and ought to have its own page, just as the other seven law schools listed on that page do. The fact that a page is a stub which needs more sources doesn't automatically show that it doesn't meet notability guidelines. --Drevolt (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I do not think the argument above is OSE, but rather an appeal to following the general and I think universal or almost universal consensus for law schools and medical schools . (fwiw, normally business & other professional schools have pages only if they're particularly important). Looking at this particular article and the redirect target, , I notice it is a a redirect, not a merge, and the main page is almost totally lacking information about the law school, so it amounts to a deletion by fiat. Therefore I undid the redirect to restore the page. It does need some more information and references, and I have marked it accordingly.
- Drevolt, please add some immediately. Certainly at least the academic standing will have a 3rd party ref. And there seem to be notable alumni, who are mentioned on the main page, so that's content to add and refsshould be available. I've marked the article as underconstruction for the moment. I'lll try to work on it myself a little tomorrow. � DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
MDA Corporation is not Maxar Technologies
You reverted my initial work to create a new page for MDA Corporation. Many of the previous MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates assets that were acquired in 2017 through an RTO to become Maxar have been repatriated to the newly formed Canadian firm MDA Corporation. Now both companies exist and they are indeed separate entities with different offerings. I am going to revert your undo and start to build out a proper page for MDA Corporation. Brantzmyers (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
They Call Us Au Go-Go Singers
I was going to ask WP:RM to rename this as an uncontroversial move, but I noticed you have already reverted the editor Cassidd's creation of this article – be aware that they've simply recreated it at They Call Us Au Go-Go Singers (album). There doesn't seem much point asking for it to be renamed without the disambiguator, or to create a double redirect – not sure what the best plan of action here is. I've noticed this editor seems to be creating as many articles related to Stephen Stills as they can, and many of them are of dubious notability. Richard3120 (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
|
Thank you for your reviews! :) Neopeius (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
- No worries, Neopeius - Keep up the good work.Onel5969 TT me 21:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
A Sweet return for your sweetness
|
Thank you so much for your reviews on my new wikipedia articles! Hope that I am able to contribute more to the Wikipedia in a resourceful manner. :) --Aleyamma38 (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
Aleyamma38 - no worries. Welcome to Wikipedia.Onel5969 TT me 21:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC) onel5969 - Thanks a lot Sir/Madam --Aleyamma38 (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Walter Adam Lawson
No problem from me if you want to delete Walter Adam Lawson. Leveni (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Contesting speedy deletion: OroraTech
Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of OroraTech, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it has real encyclopedic value: The described company is the only private endeavor (in Europe, if not worldwide) to approach the issue of wildfire detection from space; which is subject to scientifical discussion since many years, and also objective of several public space programs (ESA, NASA). Relevance is further underlined by funding for the company from such agencies. Granted, phrasing is a bit press release-like, but I should be able to fix this. --MultiPolitikus (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- MultiPolitikus, cool. Thanks for letting me know. Onel5969 TT me 20:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Onel5969, thanks for your patience. Wanted to let you know that I'm done making changes to OroraTech. Section "Programs and Achievements" is promotional in itself and might be removed completely, if needed. Rest of the text, as well as sources, are purged now. Please advise. Thanks! --MultiPolitikus (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969, I hope this message finds you well! I saw that you reverted my redirect/move for Piperia elegans (to Platanthera elegans) earlier. I wonder if we could just discuss it a bit? The Wikipedia page for Piperia is already a redirect to Platanthera (because the former is now considered a synonym of the latter), so I thought I would just move Piperia elegans to Platanthera elegans. Looking through the pages for the other former Piperia species, however, it seems that none of them reflect the genus change. If I moved all the former Piperias to their respective Platanthera pages to ensure uniformity, would that address your objection, or is there another issue? I am also working on hopefully expanding the pages for the former Piperias, if that helps. Best regards, JadeSpire (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- JadeSpire, hi. What you did is called a "cut and paste move" (see WP:CUTANDPASTE). Which isn't allowed on WP due to attribution concerns. What you have to do is actually WP:MOVE the page, which moves the page's history with it. If you don't have pagemover status, you can go to WP:REQMOVE and make a request there. I don't know enough about binomial nomenclature to comment on whether or not the move should be made. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 22:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the help! JadeSpire (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi again, quick question: some of the Piperia species seem to already have corresponding Platanthera pages (P. elegans included), so it's not allowing me to do a simple move; how do I circumvent this problem? JadeSpire (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi again, I was actually able to move some other Piperia pages to their corresponding Platanthera pages, so I guess the issue is that the corresponding Platanthera pages already had significant history? Could you help me with these moves? The pages are Piperia yadonii to Platanthera yadonii, Piperia elegans to Platanthera elegans, and Piperia michaelii to Platanthera michaelii. Also, I made a mistake when I said earlier that the Piperia page was already a redirect to Platanthera. I had searched "Piperia" on Google, and the primary results returned Platanthera, so I assumed a redirect was already made. There is actually a separate Piperia page with some content; if I wanted to merge it with Platanthera (perhaps in a section detailing the taxonomic shift), how could I preserve attributions to other users' edits? JadeSpire (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- JadeSpire, these are not simple questions (although they are not difficult either). Give me tonight and the morning to take a look at them, and see what needs to be done. Then it would be easier for me to do it, and then you can take a look at what I did. Okay? Onel5969 TT me 00:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Thank you very much for your time and assistance. JadeSpire (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- JadeSpire, okay, so you've opened move discussions on several pages. Those pages can't be moved until those discussions are closed, Piperia elegans, Piperia michaelii, Piperia yadonii, and Platanthera elongata. Once those discussions are closed (this can take a few days, a week, sometimes a month), then a "round-robin switch" can be done, which will move the current article to the new name, and leave a redirect. As a pagemover, I can also do this for you. The results of the round robin are just like the pages you moved yourself, like Platanthera cooperi. However, you can't do that, being blocked by the existing redirect. If there are comments on the talk pages look positive for the move, and there are at least 2-3, let me know. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 11:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! In case there are not too many comments, though, what will be the outcome? Also – I am applying for a username change, so I just wanted to let you know in case my name is changed when I return to this thread. :) JadeSpire (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- JadeSpire, okay, so you've opened move discussions on several pages. Those pages can't be moved until those discussions are closed, Piperia elegans, Piperia michaelii, Piperia yadonii, and Platanthera elongata. Once those discussions are closed (this can take a few days, a week, sometimes a month), then a "round-robin switch" can be done, which will move the current article to the new name, and leave a redirect. As a pagemover, I can also do this for you. The results of the round robin are just like the pages you moved yourself, like Platanthera cooperi. However, you can't do that, being blocked by the existing redirect. If there are comments on the talk pages look positive for the move, and there are at least 2-3, let me know. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 11:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Thank you very much for your time and assistance. JadeSpire (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- JadeSpire, these are not simple questions (although they are not difficult either). Give me tonight and the morning to take a look at them, and see what needs to be done. Then it would be easier for me to do it, and then you can take a look at what I did. Okay? Onel5969 TT me 00:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)