Jump to content

User talk:Onel5969/Archive 89

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85←Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90Archive 91→Archive 95

Archive 77:April 2021

Draft:Pirates! Gold

It appears that there has been disagreement about whether to accept this draft. I see that the title Pirates! Gold is a redirect, and that it was previously an article, and has been cut down to a redirect. Another reviewer had tagged the redirect as G6 to accept the draft, but I removed the G6 and declined the draft. I don't have an opinion on whether the draft should be accepted, but the acceptance isn't non-contentious, so G6 isn't appropriate, and I will defer to other reviewers on the merge or split issue. Is there discussion underway? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thanks for the ping. Will put my .02 at the discussion. Onel5969 TT me 12:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to review the article Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point. I disagree with your removal of the chapter summaries. The book covers many different subjects, and makes several different arguments, any one of which may be relevant when the book is referenced elsewhere (sometimes it is cited for its chapter on cosmology, other times it is cited for its defence of retrocausality, etc.). This is fairly common for academic philosophy books, as they often make several thematically related, but distinct arguments. As these arguments are often long and subtle, a different chapter is devoted to each one. As a result, a chapter-by-chapter summary is far more useful than a single paragraph overview. I understand that in the case of some books (like, say, Harry Potter), a chapter-by-chapter summary would be overkill, but I hope I have explained why it is necessary for this book (and a lot of academic philosophy books in general). Other wikipedia articles on academic philsophy follow this pattern as well (see eg. here, here or here for the first three books that came into my head) so clearly other wiki editors agree with me. I'll probably restore the chapter summaries for the reasons stated above unless I hear a convincing reason from you why I shouldn't. (ps. dismissing it as 'blather' as you did in your edit comment isn't very productive or convincing :) ). All the best, Alfredsph (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Alfredsph, first, sorry about the use of blather. Hadn't had my first cup of coffee, and was stuck for what word to use, but you are correct, it shouldn't have been that one. Second, I disagree about the blow-by-blow (which is the term I should have used, but couldn't think of) chapter analysis. I think that would fall under WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I know that the reviewer who initially did not accept your article ReaderofthePack, also had an issue with the chapter breakdown, although I don't know if it was for the same reason as mine. Again, apologies for the poor word choice selection on my part. Onel5969 TT me 23:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, Thanks for responding to my message. No problem about the use of 'blather'- all is forgiven! Yes, it is true that ReaderofthePack had an issue with the chapter breakdown, but I still don't understand what the problem is. I've now had a chance to read WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and there is nothing in those guidelines which advises against chapter-by-chapter breakdowns of non-fiction books. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK states that Wikipedia should present facts and articles should not be written in the style of a pedagogical texts, with leading questions and problems with solutions. Nothing in my original article went against any of this and there is nothing in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK which supports removing chapter summaries. Finally, I can point to many Wikipedia articles on non-fiction books in the sciences and philosophy which have been given 'good article' status under WP:GOOD and contain chapter-by-chapter summaries. For example: Bad Pharma, Endless Forms Most Beautiful (book), Feathers: The Evolution of a Natural Miracle, On Growth and Form, Power: A New Social Analysis. I realize that, on its own, WP:OSE is not a strong argument, but the fact that other editors have given these articles 'good article' status, without removing the chapter-by-chapter summaries is a good indication that there is nothing wrong with this kind of summary. This fact, combined with the fact that the guidelines in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK do not have anything forbidding chapter summaries seems to me like a pretty strong reason for the summaries to be included in the article. Do you agree? All the best, Alfredsph (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Your revert

I'm afraid I don't understand your revert on Demon City Shinjuku Role-Playing Game. The article draft you reverted links to an RS magazine review and an RS book mention. How is this not a presumptive NBOOK pass? I am somewhat at a loss, here. Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Edits on Singapore radio stations

Hi there, I noticed that you reverted the edits. It's unjustified because if that's reverted, we also have to review other media articles by Mediacorp and SAFRA Radio, and so on all media channels given the reasoning that you and another editor provided. Are we saying all TV, radio and other media channels are invalid to have an article? If this is not resolved, I will bring this up to arbitration. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

TheGreatSG'rean, bring it up at arbitration. You'll get laughed at, not only because it's a spurious attack, but also because that's the wrong venue. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY. Most of which the articles you undid the revert at do not meet. WP:OSE is a very weak argument. Justlettersandnumbers was absolutely correct in their assessment. If you feel the stations pass WP:GNG, or WP:BCAST, simply add the necessary sourcing, and then there won't be an issue. Onel5969 TT me 17:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Why not you check the articles on other media companies (ie Mediacorp and SAFRA Radio) in Singapore, then you tell me if that meets the standards you just stated? You and Justlettersandnumbers just think that by deleting 1 segment, it's ok. I have also asked other contributors to fix the issues. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
TheGreatSG'rean, because that's irrelavent. As I said, if you're so interested in the articles, fix them so they meet notability criteria, and stop asking others to do the work. Onel5969 TT me 17:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid there's no point continuing the conversation since you think you're mighty and right, and you refuse to address the other queries (you branded them as "irrelevant"). TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
TheGreatSG'rean, we do agree, the conversation has no point, but it's because you're lazy, wanting other folks do the work for you, and don't want to understand WP notability guidelines. Don't post on my talk page again. Onel5969 TT me 17:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
One more thing. I'm not saying I'm not gonna fix it. And please don't make any assumptions. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Onel5969, TheGreatSG'rean, thanks for the ping! I really don't care how we move forward on those articles – I redirected them because (as I said at the time) there was no indication that any one of the things was notable independently of the notability of the parent company (which I didn't investigate). If someone wants to undo those redirects it's OK with me; if they are promptly provided with a good number of solid independent reliable sources that adequately support the content and convincingly demonstrate that each of them meets WP:NCORP then that's great, a win for the project. If that doesn't happen I'll AfD them; I'm reasonably confident that the outcome of the discussions will in each case be "redirect", which will bring us back to where we are now, after wasting a good deal of editor time and goodwill that might have been better expended elsewhere. However it goes, can I just ask that we all keep any discussion collaborative and friendly? – everyone has the same intention to improve the encyclopaedia, let's try to work amicably together to achieve that. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: Savannah Historic District (Savannah, Georgia)

Hi there. Thanks for your message.

I've actually started creating articles on the city's 22 squares (see Greene Square, Savannah, created today), which will include these properties. I've only created articles on the buildings that are part of the eight relevant blocks that were originally formed around each square by the Oglethorpe Plan, but I'm also creating articles on other notable buildings around the city. - Seasider53 (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Seasider53, and I've reviewed several of those articles, which are very well done. It's just that these stubs don't meet notability criteria, and I'd hate to see all your hard work go to waste, and it would really improve the historic district article. In fact, you might want to work on that and see if you could get it up to GA status, since you have such an interest in Savanah history. Onel5969 TT me 20:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you help me please?

Hi! I created the article AJ “El Kallejero” Ramos about a media personality and one of the most relevant Latin music executive and interviewer, featured on MLB, Forbes, Bloomberg and listed as a 2020 Billboard Latin Power Player, a billboard program that highlights the executives behind Latin music’s explosive move into the pop music mainstream. All the information on this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It has been tag for speedy deletion because a user thinks it might be promotional or to publicise a person, I edited the article and sent a message to the user that tagged it, asking him about what else can I change or were exactly did he see the promotional material so I can it, or maybe another user can change it and I have not gotten a response. I write to you for help because the article was reviewed by you and I think you might want to know. 

Thank you --Dominicansinhistory (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Italic title

Hello. How can I to change the title name to italic? I want change Ormosia amazonica. Best regards. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I found out here 😁. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

A.WagnerC, excellent! Onel5969 TT me 19:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Review request

Hi! Can you review this page?

Thank you! Byy2 (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Byy2, hi. There's a backlog in the queue right now, when a reviewer comes across it, it will be reviewed. Since it's a new article, please have patience. Onel5969 TT me 13:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay then, thank you for responding though. Thank you! Byy2 (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply about Viktor Perelman page

Hello. I am returning your post regarding the Viktor Perelman page. I acknowledge that I acted too soon by publishing the page myself, and should have submitted it via the review process. I am definitely willing to modify it. You mention that the page does not meet Wikipedia's standards for structure and formatting, and has a huge COI and POV issue. Can you give me advice on how to properly edit the page so that it can be suitable for potential publication, and/or submission via the review process?

Thanks, 13irinapg (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

13irinapg, hi. First, get rid of most/all the essays. If he has essays which have hundreds of citations, then they can be included, but if not, they should be removed as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as the only reason to put them in the article is to puff up the subject. Second, what you have as "reviews in the press" are not really reviews. They are not independent of the book, and appear to be more of forwards in the book, rather than reviews in independent media. Third, get rid of expressions like "turbulent struggle", and "as a person of extraordinary ability", simply state the facts. In the first instance, simply state that after he had difficulties with the Russian authorities, he immigrated. And in the second simply state he got an EB-1 visa. Onel5969 TT me 13:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Stroke Center article

Hi, WP sent me a notice about the article, "Stroke center," but the message area was blank. Did you have a suggestion or need me to change something? I know it needs more references. Thanks. CohuttaBlue (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

CohuttaBlue, hi. I'm not seeing where I sent you a message. Looking at the history of your talk page, the last activity there was back in January, and I just reviewed the page a few days ago on 4/2. Can you link to the message? Onel5969 TT me 13:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks. The WP system notification just lets me know you reviewed the page. But the automated email they sent read as if I should contact you. It said:
"Editor's summary: -
Contact the editor:
mail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Onel5969
wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Onel5969 "
It suggested leaving a message on your talk page. So... sorry, I guess it's just a generic message letting me know I can contact you if needed. Thanks anyway.
CohuttaBlue - yeah, not sure why that happened. Regardless, you're aware of what the article needs, so keep up the good work. Onel5969 TT me 16:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Govvy (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank You for reviewing my article!!! Sz Zzzzs (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Januszjan88 (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

reversing the Kabi redirect

Hi, please I do not understand why you reversed my changes to the Kabi page. I see that you are very very active, if there is at all a person behind this account, but because you are so active, I have doubt that you had a look into the topic and just reversed because everything gets reversed what was done by a newbee. Am I correct there? This well written and sourced article by Dianekmt who I am in contact with stands by its own, and just because the Gubbi Gubbi article states that both tribes are the same, doesn't justify deletion of the Kabi article. Its needs a little more investigation. Background : the Gubbi Gubbi lost a land title claim against the Kabi Kabi, and in maps and books the Kabi Kabi land is 150km north to 100km south of Noosa QLD. Would you help us to keep the Kabi page online, please? Wikigetsme123 (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikigetsme123, hi. I'll let another reviewer take a whack at it. Onel5969 TT me 15:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
there is a discussion on at the Gubbi Gubbi page. It should have been on the Kabi page since Dianekmt added her article to the obviously empty page at that time, and it was deleted and redirected without any discussion on Dianekmt s Talk

Wikigetsme123 (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Momoland

I don't see why you have to blanked List of songs recorded by Momoland, when articles like these exist;

Those articles either have 1 or 0 reference. While the Momoland article is backed up with plenty of references in comparison from those articles. Songwriters aren't mentioned in the discography article and it took plenty of time for me to gather information about the songwriters of those songs. Not every album track and b-side are mentioned in the discography article as well. Please gather a consensus or submit it to article deletion, rather than blanking it.TheHotwiki (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hotwiki, hi. The first part of your comment is WP:OSE, and not really valid. However, the second part has interesting points. Question though, why not simply add the additional information to the existing discography? Onel5969 TT me 15:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Album tracks and b-sides don't have their own section in discography pages in Wikipedia, from what I've seen. Songwriters for each song/single aren't mentioned in discography pages as well. Also I just don't see the reasoning of redirecting it to the discography page of the group, when there's plenty of "List of recorded songs" by other artists (as I pointed out) that barely have any reference or worse completely unreferenced. Momoland is as well known as the other South Korean groups I've mentioned. I don't think its fair to blank a well sourced article featuring list of recorded songs - when there are other "List of recorded songs" articles that don't even have a single reference that continue to exist in Wikipedia for years. Also shouldn't you at least to put this up for discussion first? before you blank an article. Like I said, it took me a lot of effort and time to compile all those information and references. TheHotwiki (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Star Vijay Music

What is the reason behind deleting of Star Vijay Music page? I have removed redirect link of Star Vijay to create a separate page for Star Vijay Music. But, page has been got again redirected & removed all contents. Why? DreamTeamzz (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

DreamTeamzz, because it was deleted as the result of a recent AfD discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Vijay Music. Onel5969 TT me 15:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Then what is the procedure to reconstruct the page? DreamTeamzz (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Deprodding of 1989–1990 unrest in Benin

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from 1989–1990 unrest in Benin, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Your opinion about Pogoń and Pahonia

@Onel5969: Hello, I noticed that you reverted Лобачев Владимир's edit in the article of Pogoń, who reverted mine edit in which I made it as a redirect page. There is an intensive discussion whenever Pagonia/Pahonia/Pogoń/Vytis/Waikymas (various names of the coat of arms of Lithuania in other languages) is the same thing, so your support in this discussion would be very welcome: HERE. Also, I reported the Belarusians pushing of propaganda HERE as they try to separate Pagonia/Pahonia/Pogoń from the Republic of Lithuania and to falsely prove that the modern Lithuania is derived from Samogitia (Duchy of Samogitia), while Belarus is the primary inheritor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (it is a pure propaganda as it is scientifically known that this state was created by the Balts, not Slavs). So if you have a strong opinion in this topic, please participate in this discussion and in mine report of such actions to the administrators of Wikipedia. Best regards, -- Pofka (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hira Mani

I'm not sure what you mean here. Surely Hira would know her own date of birth better than anyone else? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, unless she's lying. Youtube is not a reliable source. Onel5969 TT me 02:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Why are we going to assume she's lying in the absence of any RS contradicting her? (RS, in fact, confirm that DOB). Again, per WP:ABOUTSELF, this is perfectly normal info to include; a video does not become unreliable merely by virtue of being posted on YouTube.
This is the second time I remember talking to you about your reverting an IP edit to an unsourced or source-contradicting state (the first being here). If RS as they relate to South Asian topics are difficult for you to handle, maybe stray away from the topic area? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
M Imtiaz, why are you going to assume she's telling the truth, when actors lie about their birthdays all the time? That's the more relevant question. And it's not about ABOUTSELF, but about the reliability of the source, YouTube. What if that video has been doctored? If the source was from Us or People, we would at least know that is truly what she said. On YouTube, things can be edited so that they are not what they appear to be, Onel5969 TT me 14:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know, maybe because I literally just gave you a secondary RS that confirms what she said? Where there's an RS that demonstrates that the actor is lying, we obviously prefer that, but that's not the case here, so this is the type of uncontroversial info that ABOUTSELF allows.
Surely Hira would have come out and called rubbish if an interviewer had doctored a video to have her say a different date of birth? Additionally, the fact that you seem to think only Western sources like the ones you mention can possibly be reliable demonstrates my point about you not being fit to work in South Asia as a topic area. Why are we not allowed to have our own newspapers, our own magazines, our own websites, instead of foreigners telling us that any information must be written in their sources in order to be accepted? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 20:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of Speedy Deletion

I'm rather perplexed on the tagging of Invest In Our New York Act that you added a CSD G11 tag to in this edit. As you can clearly see from that version, it is on a public legal bill and has plenty of sourcing to at least claim notability. It is in no way appropriate for speedy deletion to be used in any fashion on it, let alone a G11. Why did you think such an action was appropriate? SilverserenC 17:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren, because it's clearly an advertisement for the bill. It offers no contrary coverage, and only presents the bill from the pov of those who proposed it. While it was not deleted, the advertisement aspect of it was clearly supported by another editor. Onel5969 TT me 17:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It offers the "POV" of the sources that are covering it. A legal bill article, at its creation, is not required to include "contrary coverage", that can be added later. There was nothing even close to advertisement about it. Otherwise you're claiming all legal bill articles on their creation are "advertisements", because they are going to all start off simply as saying what the bill is and what politicians created it. Again, not appropriate for CSD in the slightest. SilverserenC 17:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Silver seren, no, I'm claiming this one is. Regardless of the sources, the way this article is written is as an ad. I've reviewed literally hundreds of pages about bills, I believe this is the only one I've ever seen written so blatantly as an advertisement. Most have sourcing showing the pros and cons of the bill, especially in bills which are still only bills, and not laws. The only thing inappropriate are your comments. Onel5969 TT me 17:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Bro Daniel Rai

I have edited the article and there is no copyright infrigment now. I would request you to remove that tag. Daniel Rai is also a first Nepali international Christian peacher. His article is important for Indian Nepali El shaddai Christian as he is notable and influncer for many Nepali Christian. He also worked with well know preacher like Bro Bakht singh. He also converted the bible into Nepali language with the help of TBS. @bursubba (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Anti-feminist bias again? (Miranda as target)

Hello @Onel5969 !

I noticed you are now following all of my work...That almost feels like a compliment! However Miranda Veljačić (as you stated also yourself) is notable enough and so I hope you will you remove your deletionist action urge, before this escalates further. You are welcome to discuss it but if you are again trigger happy it is terrible starting point.

Thank you very much! --Zblace (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Zblace, this is the second time you've made a baseless accusation. Aside from the fact that you don't have your facts correct in the above statement, and don't flatter yourself, not "following" your work. Simply slogging through the NPP process. You are free to remove the prod tag yourself, at which point I'll take it to AfD. And since you can't seem to be civil, do not post on my talk page again. Onel5969 TT me 13:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969 your page is packed of deletionist work and you will challenged for sure. Time of this kind of toxic behavior is ending and it has nothing to do to your idea of quality of work or civility. --Zblace (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Request to no delete page

Hello! I read your message in my talk page. But please, don't delete the Bachelor Express page.. :(( Corner2002 (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Corner2002, hi. There are 2 issues with it. The first is that it was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion. Therefore, it probably should have gone through AFC for re-creation. The current sourcing is not really in-depth enough to show notability. An admin will take a look at the former version and determine if this is essentially different. If it is, that part of the speedy deletion will be removed. If it isn't it will be deleted. The second issue is one that it appears to simply be an article serving as an ad for the service. It should be re-written to make it more about the bus company, and not the services it provides. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 16:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969:, I didn't also know that the former page was deleted. But is there another way to not delete the page?

Request: clarification of article status

Article in subject: Euphoria (visual novel).

I'm trying to figure out the nomination of the article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euphoria (visual novel)). Can you lend a hand? אילן שמעוני (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

אילן שמעוני, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me to do? Onel5969 TT me 13:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I assume, since you reviewed said article, you found it appropriate for publication. Stating that in the deletion discussion will be appreciated. אילן שמעוני (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
אילן שמעוני, oh, okay. My review of the article was purely functional. The article was sent to AfD, so that discussion's result is going to decide whether or not the article will be kept, so it was "reviewed" simply to take it off the NPP backlog. When I looked at the article, I really didn't a strong feeling about notability one way or another. That being said, even if I had been going to comment, I would hesitate now, since you canvassed me. Please see WP:CANVASSING. But I will leave a comment at the discussion. Onel5969 TT me 13:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Pridnestrovie

Hi, this article is only at the initial stage of writing, why are you deleting the text? Then everything will be decorated with refferences and links. Jobyr (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Jobyr, the place to work on articles, if not providing sourcing, is in draft space. Would you like me to move it there for you so that you can work on it? Onel5969 TT me 13:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Not worth it, thanks, I'll try to work with the sources and arrange the article properly. As far as I know, no one deletes articles that are not properly formatted here, but marks the need for revision, and here are a lot of almost empty articles that no one is even going to add. So this actions surprised me. Jobyr (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Jobyr, this had nothing to do with formatting, but with lack of sources. As per WP:VERIFY, all information must be appropriately sourced, and unsourced information may be removed at any time, after which it should not be re-added without sourcing as per WP:BURDEN. And you are not making much sense. Why would you say it's not worth it to move to draft to work on it, where you'll be undisturbed, but yet you're going to work on it? Onel5969 TT me 13:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
If we are talking about verifying those paragraphs that I wrote yesterday, then, in my opinion, a draft is not needed here, but I need to provide links / sources, right? Jobyr (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Jobyr, from reliable, independent sourcing, yes. But still unsure about your reticence about moving it to draft. Onel5969 TT me 13:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
If the article causes any criticism, then I will move it to the draft. Now, if an article is in a common space, the whole community is finalizing it, but only me if it's in the draft. But, unfortunately, I have limited time resources, so collaboration is preferable here. Jobyr (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Squid things

Hey, I'm aware of the recurring problem of stupidly-named duplicate articles that have to be merged, then leave the stupid name as a redirect in mainspace... the problem is that one can't just CSD them if they have a substantial history, as in this case. The best solution I have found so far is to move w/o redirect to a sensible name (in this case, one of the common names). This preserves the history at the cost of breaking a few links to the original, but these tend to be minimal with fresh productions. What do you think? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Elmidae, I agree wholeheartedly. I did the CSD at virtually the same time you were fixing the redirect. I hadn't thought about doing it your way. Excellent result. Onel5969 TT me 16:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Elmidae, oh, and I forgot to mention that your whole concept, not just about the redirect aspect of it, was brilliant. I feel bad when there's an obviously better article created about an existing topic, that the only way I saw was to CSD it, since the topic already existed. But while this doesn't happen frequently (although for some bizarre reason it's happened about 5 times in the past 2 days), I'll use this method from now on. Bravo you. Onel5969 TT me 16:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Heh - it seems so simple but it apparently is non-intuitive even to the pros. I had a long discussion (can't find it now) with Anthony Appleyard, who is The Man with history mergers, about such a case, where I wanted to CSD a dumb redirect and save the history via history merger to the target page. Apparently that can only rarely be done, for reasons that still escape me. Then after a good while we both came up with this solution at the same time :p Next level elegance would be to move-w/o-redirect the original to the sensible name before merging, to avoid this type of bumbling, but we'll leave that for occasions when I've had coffee... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Elmidae, yay! I think I just did one correctly, could you do me a favor and backstop me and see if you think I did it right? The page is Marajó Bay, which had been recreated as The Marajó Bay. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
That's the bunny, as far as I can see. High five! :D --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Just for fun

Hello O. When clicking on bare urls have you noticed the some websites have fun "page not found" messages? Here is one example and it kinda makes me wish I had kept a collection of them over the years. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

MarnetteD, lol. But never too late to start your collection. Some are quite creative (most are simply dull 404 messages). Onel5969 TT me 01:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
You are so right about how dull most of them are. I'm guessing the fun ones have someone at the main website who has a creative spark and/or a good sense of humor. Thank goodness for that as we need things to make us smile from time to time and more so now than ever :-) Enjoy your Sunday and the week ahead!! MarnetteD|Talk 02:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Rajendra Kishore Panda

Hi Onel5969. This is Pratik. Correct me if I am wrong. I noticed that you put 'notability' tag in Rajendra Kishore Panda, which has been created by me. The subject has received two very reputed awards: Gangadhar National Award For Poetry & Sahitya Akademi Award, given by Indian's National Academy of Letters. Is this not enough for author's notability ? Thanks.Pratikbhansali123 (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Pratikbhansali123, hi. Thanks for reaching out. After re-evaluating, have marked it reviewed. Onel5969 TT me 04:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Chicks on the Right

This article was in Draftspace, declined after numerous issues (after being AFDed), but I saw you patrolled it. Do you think it should go back to AFD, redirect or left alone? Its a very poorly written article. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Zero Serenity, when I do my NPP work, I used to look for the prior AfD tag first, but now that's the last thing I check. I simply look to see if, if it was a brand new article, does it pass WP:GNG, has any copyvio issues, and well, simply go through the NPP flow chart. I tagged it for unreliable sourcing, since, imho, it relies too heavily on YouTube crap. If you look at my record, I'm not shy at sending stuff to prod, CSD (due to the prior AfD), or AfD, nor am I reticent to draftify an article. I certainly wouldn't get bent out of shape if you sent it back to AfD, or even draftified it, if you let it sit for a week or so to allow the creator to attempt to bring it up to snuf. However, a WP:BEFORE seems to indicate that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 04:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Zero Serenity has been making comments on my page, but I would like to start a discussion about the Chicks on the Right page at the article talk. Can you help out and join in? Thank you! A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Alaska4Me2, be careful about WP:CANVASSING. Feel free to start a discussion on the article's talk page, which is the correct place to have a discussion. Zero Serenity, rather than edit-warring, simply take the article to AfD again. Or conversely, and I should have said this earlier, feel free to CSD it, as recreation of an article deleted through a discussion. An admin will then evaluate whether this version is significantly different from that which was deleted, if it is not, they will delete, but if it is significantly different, they will not. At that point, you can take it to AfD if you feel strongly. But do engage in a civil discussion on the talk page. Onel5969 TT me 01:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for taking the time to be my trainer in NPP school and to share your wiki-wisdom. You taught me every trick in the book and more. I appreciate it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry

Hi, I Suspect this three accounts to be the same person which was vandalising the kallar caste & other pages without a Wikipedia account, this accounts evolved after the page was protected, this people have been vandalising other pages as well. Oudi berry AravindShekar9 Ihaveabandonedmychild Nandivarman (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

V.Mitch McEwen

Hi I noticed that you flagged the article on V.Mitch McEwen for not meeting the notability criteria. I wanted to ask you how the subject is not meeting these criteria? Here is how I think the subject actually meets those criteria.

Under section 'Any Biography' the subject is meeting the 2nd point when the subject was part of the first ever all African-American group to be given a exhibition at the MoMA while starting a successful movement against 'White Supremacy in Architecture' to cancel the name of Nazi collaborator Philip Johnson from the gallery space. There are links from the New York Times and MoMA in the reference section.

The subject also meets the 'Academics' section criteria since the subject was faculty on several respected universities such as Columbia University or the University of Michigan and is currently a Professor at Princeton.

Receiving a tenured or tenure track position at a Ivy League school is probably not a notability in itself, but being the first African American person to do so in their architecture department is probably worth mentioning besides the fact that the subject has several papers and publication with citations as well and is frequently invited to give talks and presentations in academic circles.

McEwen, "Negro | Bauhaus: design and politics of experimental life" in Bauhaus futures (MIT Press, 2019) McEwen, "Watercraft: Detroit water infrastructure and its protocols of sprawl and displacement " in Perspecta 50: Urban divides (MIT Press, 2017)

Under 'Creative Professionals' the subject meets all four listed criteria with her body of work shown at the U.S. Pavilion in Venice Italy (only 12 Americans are invited every other year to exhibit here) and her work shown at the Museum of Modern Art or her work shown at the Detroit Art Museum or her award she received from the Knight Foundation as shown through the references in the article.

Again, would be good to hear your reasoning so I can improve the article and save it from deletion since there are probably many more references. However, if references such as the American Institute of Architecture, the Van Alen Institute, Princeton University, the New York Times, and major art and design magazines such as Metropolis, Pin Up, Architect's Newspaper are not considered reliable then it will be tricky of course.

Please let me know your thoughts and thank you for your time and effort. Soupmaker (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker

Soupmaker, hi. Definitely does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. And I would disagree with your assessment re: WP:NCREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. Regarding CREATIVE, I don't see how they meet any of the 4 criteria. There is nothing to show "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." That would be shown by references to her by her peers, which I'm not seeing. The best claim would be the 3rd bullet point, and her work on U.S. Pavilion, but I don't think it rises to the level needed. Having exhibitions at MoMA is good, but unless they are part of the permanent collection, that doesn't meet the criteria. Regarding ANYBIO, not sure the claims in the article satisfy that criteria. That being said, I didn't nominate the page for deletion, as I didn't feel strongly enough for that. But tagged it to let other reviewers know I think there may be an issue with it. Other reviewers may see it differently. To help the article, I'd find some good in-depth coverage about her, from independent sources, and add it to the article. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 11:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

David Rosebrook

Hello,

I received an email from you suggesting edits to the David Rosebrook article, yet I find no suggestions from you or any indication ANYWHERE that any of the information I have provided is not in compliance with Wikipedia standards. Please explain what I have done incorrectly. Thank you.

--Mark O'Keeffe (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Mark O'Keeffe, it's been tagged for almost a month as having unreliable sources, which would be all 3 of its current sourcing. In addition, I tagged it today, since there is still quite a bit of the article which is still uncited. If you receive notification like that again, simply go to the article and look at the tags. Onel5969 TT me 20:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Faculty of Fine Arts of Pontevedra moved to draftspace

Hello! I'm sorry but I didn't see your message until today. I made a translation of the article that's why I didn't include references as they were not in the original articles (French, Portuguese). I have already added to the article multiple references from Spanish newspapers, in addition to the bibliography of the books where the information can be found. I have just submitted the draft for review. Best regards! --MJSB73MP (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

MJSB73MP, Nice job, reviewed it and moved it to mainspace. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 TT me 11:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding revert of .cam gTLD page

Hi Onel5969. I'm the Technical & Business Development Manager of .cam gTLD and i created yesterday a page for .cam which was just a redirect before. However, i've seen you reverted the page to a previous edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.cam&oldid=1019143361) justifying that the vast majority of the content is unsourced. I wrote the article for .cam providing the information directly from the source (our company), as we are managing this domain extension. Information provided in the edit is also live on ICANN wiki page (https://icannwiki.org/.cam) since a long time. What sources would you want to be provided since we are the company managing .cam and the most credible source of information when it comes to .cam gTLD. Thank you very much for your understanding.

Kindest Regards Andrei Dumitriu .CAM | https://nic.cam

Tespio (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Tespio, hi. A couple of things, you have a definite COI issue, and probably a UPE issue (see WP:COI and WP:UPE. You shouldn't be editing the article at all, rather, you should be requesting edits on the article's talk space. Now about content. Everything on WP should be sourced. Claims, like the one you made about the 56th most used domain name, need to be sourced through independent sources, which you did, so that was nice. Finally, to show notability, you need to have some in-depth coverage from those independent sources. Are there articles in magazines, or trade publications which talk about the domain? Onel5969 TT me 11:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Zia un Nabi

Hi. I have edited and removed whatever the copyvio was. The article is about notable biography of Prophet of Islam. Please cooperate so that it may be in main space. Suggest me to add or remove any point/content. ScholarM (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

ScholarM, even with your changes, it doesn't meet notability criteria. Regardless, the copyvio needs to be redacted from history. Onel5969 TT me 02:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

NPP School

Hi Onel5969, I saw you are listed as a available trainer on Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School and wanted to ask you if you might consider taking me on as a student? -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Asartea, would be delighted to. Will set it up and ping you either later today or tomorrow morning. Onel5969 TT me 22:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just dropping a quick reminder here since the treachery of timezones means the weekend is ending soonishly for me. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Asartea, I was going to ping you today, did you not get a ping on Friday? I set up the page, you can find it here: User:Onel5969/NPPSchool/Asartea. Apologies. Onel5969 TT me 15:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
no, weirdly enough I did not get a ping for that. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 16:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Asartea, no worries then. Welcome aboard. Onel5969 TT me 16:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Banned user and hoax articles

I noticed that you're CSDing anything made by banned user Wadamz, which was banned for making a couple of hoax articles. Are the things you're CSDing articles you suspect to be hoaxes? Because i've been looking through them and they seem to be properly sourced. Unless i'm missing something, they don't appear to be hoaxes and aren't at all in the style of the actual hoaxes the user made. SilverserenC 01:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren, you need to learn WP policy. Any article/redirect made by a sock can be removed. And to discourage socking, it should be removed. And you're behavior since you got shown up earlier on my talk page might be considered stalking. I suggest you stop it. And unless required by policy, don't post on my talk page again. Onel5969 TT me 01:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
onel5969, this is your user talk page but I think despite your long, valued experience, you should be open to other editors raising questions with your activity. We all are challenged over edits we made, decisions we have taken, and it's not collaborative to ban anyone who comes to you with a question from your talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Liz, I understand that, however, this user has been stalking me since we had a disagreement a couple of weeks ago. It's one thing to raise questions, it's another thing to stalk. It would be fine if this was a user who had shown a proclivity to editing articles about Korean songs and artists. But they have not. In the two weeks since our disagreement, they have pretty much been stalking me, to the point where I was considering taking it to ANI (something I think I've only done once or twice - and that was years ago). We've had virtually no interaction for years, and now in the past two weeks, they've shown up on numerous pages after me. Even now, the user is removing the CSD tags claiming it was your suggestion. There is no CSD exemption, as you pointed out to them. They've made it clear they arbitrarily don't believe in G5's, as their edit summary here shows. But as always, thanks for your guidance. Onel5969 TT me 03:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Not sure if you seen my reply at Talk:Shin Se-kyung filmography. Anyway ... would appreciate that you browse through the article first before tagging it for CSD. Not every article requires CSD as majority of them meets either WP:NSONG, WP:NMUSIC or both. For article pertaining to person, majority of them meets WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSIC or both. It is not worth of the time of other editors to go around and opposing the deletion even if it is usual procedure, caution should be exercised before doing so.

Note: This is pertaining to my view of the CSD tagging on various articles (K-pop/Korean-related only) created by DynamiteIce and relating to his/her block and it is not related to Silverseren and your conversation (I have no interest to participate in that). — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Paper9oll, as I said at the article talk pages, there's no exemption for CSD. Socks are a huge time suck for WP. There's the time spent tracking them down, the time wasted by NPP and AfC reviewers, the time spent by the admins at SPI, as well as the time spent by checkusers. Then the time spent doing the G5 tagging, and the time spent by the Admins deleting the articles. Socks should never be encouraged, and not deleting their articles is the most egregious form of encouragement. But thank you for your final comment. Onel5969 TT me 13:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969: Well thanks for the reply. I do agree that socks are bad for Wikipedia no matter what, I deal with socks myself as well and taken the time filed SPI against them, collecting bunch of diff just for strong evidence. But at the same time, my suggestion is that you could check the content first but initiating CSD, saving time at the same time. If nobody actually constested it then article which is a unofficial split (uncontested/BOLD) like Shin Se-kyung filmography would be likely be deleted when the content is actually important to the main article or song which meets guidelines or person as well. Of course, what I'm saying is worse case situation and would unlikely happen ... but who knows. Anyway ... the CSD has been rejected or everything is solved. Once again, thanks you and have a nice weekend and sorry for the rant. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sankha

Sorry not to have replied sooner - I was off-line for a couple of days. I've deleted the draft and I see that there's now a deletion discussion going on so I will await the outcome. Deb (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Deb, no worries. Thanks for looking into it for me. Onel5969 TT me 22:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

using copyvio revdels

Hi! I saw you requested some revdels on older violations (I am not an admin btw). I've been advised in the past to try to limit the revdels to egregious and blatant copyvios concerning the older stuff. I use the rule of 1K bytes or higher in text removed before calling it, and many admins who deal with copyright revdels do as well. If it's a lot of revisions, it has to be especially blatant (paragraphs upon paragraphs) as well. Just passing on what was discussed recently on some admins' talk pages about this! Kind regards, Sennecaster (What now?) 00:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Sennecaster, thanks for the head's up. Never heard that. In fact in a couple of discussions I've had with admins I've been told, it doesn't matter how small the violation is. That said, it has to be a violation wherein there is no way to paraphrase the content. Will ping a couple of admins who do incredible yoeman's work on Copyvio's, to see what they say. Pinging Primefac, Hut 8.5, Cwmhiraeth, The Earwig for comment. Thanks in advance. Onel5969 TT me 03:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Earwig was the one who told me to be more conservative recently :) Glad I could help! You may want to see a recent discussion on User talk:Diannaa about the matter. Sennecaster (What now?) 03:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Sennecaster, well Diannaa is one of my go-to folks for questions regarding copyright violations, so I'd be interested in hearing from them as well. Which conversation on their page? Onel5969 TT me 03:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
User talk:Diannaa#Reasoning about RD1 :) If you want some more rapid-fire responses, there's a lot of active CCIers on the wikimedia discord. We've gathered quite a few copyvio hunters. Sennecaster (What now?) 03:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
There was also a recent discussion on AN with some more thoughts on when RD1 is appropriate, from me and others. It's a balancing act between trying to purge infringing content and preserving valid page history for editorial review, and I've seen editors fall on both ends of the spectrum. Some feel we shouldn't redact any edits if we would hide good-faith contributions that are still live (which I consider far too strict and not required by our copyright license) while others would be content to redact pretty much anything. There are at least two radically different interpretations of RD1 out there and I wish we could clarify this policy. I'm not sure what specific requests prompted this thread, but to give a general sense: among most admins I've spoken to recently who work in copyright cleanup, the view is that a revdel with a nontrivial amount of intervening history should only be done if the violation itself is especially egregious, or if it's likely the content might be re-added, or if the copyright holder complains. Happy to comment on specifics if there are particular cases you want to look at. — The Earwig (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I was reading WP:NPP (cause #NPP School) and that page says to revdel everything no matter the circumstances (see this section), which seems to conflict with what seems to be the current CCI interpretation. Really some bigger discussion on this topic might be needed. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
For NPP it's reasonable to request revdels in all cases. If an NP patroller is looking at a page then by definition it's new and it doesn't have much edit history, so revdel is almost certainly fine. In general though I will usually decline to revdel large numbers of edits spanning a large time period aside from special cases (e.g. most of the article is copyvio). This section of the revdel policy is relevant. Hut 8.5 11:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for the input. I see both sides of the discussion now. I don't think I've ever requested a revdel with more than 30 intervening edits except perhaps once. And that single time it was declined for exactly the reasons pointed out by Dianaa, The Earwig, and others. And Hut 8.5 seems to be spot on about NPP. And since that's where the vast majority of my revdel's come from, that's why I haven't run across the massive reverts. Again, thanks to Sennecaster for bringing it to my attention. Onel5969 TT me 12:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
(technically speaking the oldest article on Special:NewPagesFeed is from July 2005 but I get your point) -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 12:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Asartea, thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't specific enough. After you get through the oldest 50 or so articles, the backlog is about 3 months. It's rare that I get a copyvio in the older ones, however, as those fall into 3 main categories: 1, it's been a redirect, and an editor wants to turn it into an article; 2, It was an article, and got turned into a redirect without a valid reason, and then someone else reverts the redirect; and 3, it's the result of a split. In the first and third instances, the new material would still be a valid revdel, in the second instance would be where the potential revdel issue might occur. Onel5969 TT me 12:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

On #2 of WP:ENT

I’m not sure if or not an RFC pertaining to this has been discussed in the past, but if not I think we should initiate one in order to address #2 of ENT once and for all. I have seen editors use the “but he/she have a cult like following thus they are notable. I think it’s time we addressed that as a “cult like following “ is very vague and open to multiple interpretations, do you think we should affix a particular number of followers that establishes what a cult following is? Because I feel that criterion does the collaborative project a great disservice. What are your thoughts on this? Celestina007 (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, I agree that that particular criteria is extremely vague. What's a cult? 10? 100,000? 1,000,000? Would definitely contribute to the discussion. Onel5969 TT me 03:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep the Murder of Jaslyn Adams page

The murder has gathered significant media attention from politicians, social media and elsewhere. I do agree that the rate of child murder in Chicago is high, but this one was labelled as “special” by the media. Do not delete this page. CanadianOntarian (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Minerva Mirabal Reyes and Masooma Ranalvi

Hello again Onel5969, just following up on this thread since you've marked yet another of my group's articles for deletion. Can you please clarify what your issues are with this one so that we can address them? Thanks.--Liliput000 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969 can you please explain your speedy deletion of the page and then the speedy nomination for deletion once I reverted your deletion? I am happy to improve the article if there are discrepancies that raise a red flag for any reason as I do indeed believe she is importantly notable worthy or her own page. Thanks in advance.--Liliput000 (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Liliput000, I've never requested it to be speedy deleted. But in response to your question, I stated my rationale at the AfD discussion. While the sisters, as a group are notable, none of them individually meet the notability criteria. What you need are several in-depth articles from independent reliable sources which focus on her, not on the sisters as a group. Onel5969 TT me 19:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Onel5969 I believe we have enough, and I know there are no hard and fast rules on exactly how many we need and whether the source needs to be exclusively about the person in question. Sometimes that's simply not possible. Let's see what others say. The challenge with it is that some of them are in spanish, but as you will see there is an independent page for another of the sisters, and Minerva is in fact the more notable of the three. --Liliput000 (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Liliput000, the Spanish thing shouldn't be an issue. I would agree with you that Minerva is slightly more notable than her sisters, and don't believe the other sister comes anywhere near meeting notability criteria, but WP:OSE is rarely a good argument. I would encourage you to put your thoughts at the AfD discussion. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 20:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll look into that. And I wanted to ask what you meant that you did not request a speedy delete? You deleted the article, speedily, without reason noted, that to me sounds like a speedy delete. Was that a mistake? Thanks. --Liliput000 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Liliput000 - "speedy delete" is a technical term on WP. Articles which are speedily have to meet certain criteria (see WP:CSD), which yours certainly did not. What I did was turn the article into a redirect to the sisters page. This is actually an "alternative to deletion" (WP:ATD). Aside from CSD'ing an article, an editor can do what is called "prodding" or to be more specific, "proposing the article for deletion". I could have done that rather than redirect the article, but only if I thought the deletion would be uncontroversial. Since you reverted the redirect, there was definitely not going to be uncontested, so I sent it to AfD (Articles for Deletion), to open up a discussion regarding her individual notability. I hope that clarifies it for you. Onel5969 TT me 20:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Onel5969 Thanks for clarifying!--Liliput000 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hasan Moghimi

Hi One15969, I saw your message on my newly created page Hasan Moghimi. I would like to thank you for your consideration and help. I'm improving the article by adding new references and adding more information. What makes me a bit confused is there are dozens of pages about people with much less information or achievements. I don't want to mention here (I would if you want). This guy has published 7 pictorial books about Iran's nature as well as being co-author of other 7 (reference is in Persian but I can add ISBNs). Also he has 5 more books under publication. I wonder what would be more notable for a photographer than thousands of published pictures on national level. In the below reference there is a detailed interview with Hasan Moghimi in a news website, however it is in Persian.

http://esfahanemrooz.ir/12961-%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%82%DB%8C%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%AE-%D9%86%DA%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B7%D8%A8%DB%8C%D8%B9%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%81%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86.html

Theo Hiddema

Hi. I think here you (accidentally?) made a sock allegation against me? I made a proper edit and then you undid edits, including what I edited - which was properly sourced and accurate. I'm not sure if you think I'm someone's sock or that you reverted more than you meant to do. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I think your entire "Back to pre-sock" edit was wrong. None of the edits you reverted look malicious to me... --143.176.30.65 (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I have re-added the content. Regardless of who you think are socks, this is reliably sourced and accurate content about the subject. IMO, you should not revert content merely because it was added by a suspected sock. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Good/Bad news

Hello O. Per this Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Toolforge_down refill and citer are down but reflinks is working again. It's ability to mark dead links and fix some PDFs is so valuable I hope it keeps running for awhile. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

MarnetteD, it appears refill is back up. Nice to know about reflinks though, will begin using it again, to reduce what I load on your shoulders. Onel5969 TT me 16:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I'll tell ya this "things work sometimes and not others" is a lot like my aging body :-) Cheers again. MarnetteD|Talk 18:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

New Page Review

Hi there Onel, funny we have the same first name. Anyway I'm writing to you, to request for a page review for my article as it has been without a review for quite a while, could you kindly take a look at it and review it for me, it's named C.W. Lemoine and was made me, between the first of March to April. If you have any concerns do let me know and thank you in advance! Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 13:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Delta fiver, hi. Please be patient. We have over 3400 pages in our backlog (8 months ago it was 13,000!). I'm going through the articles beginning 4/1 starting tomorrow, so if no one else gets to it, I should get to it at some point in the coming week. Onel5969 TT me 21:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Alright, will do, thank you very much! Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 05:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thank you for helping out my article on WhiteHat Jr!

You deserve this barnstar. Vamsi20 (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Vamsi20, although I really didn't do much, just formatted the citations for you. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 TT me 21:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thomasian Welcome Walk

Hi! Could you help me publish this article? I am not sure, but I think you were the first one who suggested for the article to be deleted. The consensus was to Redirect. Anyway, I have added significant number of independent sources and continually doing so. I dont know what to do. I have tried several ways for the article to be published, but to no avail. I hope you can help me publish it, so some editors can also see and contribute to the article. Thank you! Pampi1010 (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Pampi1010, hi. It's the queue over at AfC, so be patient. I didn't do a full review, but the spot check I did didn't really show it meets notability guidelines. But I didn't check it all, as I don't do much over at AfC any more. The one Yahoo News piece would definitely count towards notability, but most of the sourcing is primary, so that doesn't count, and a couple of the other refs I spot checked which weren't primary were simple mentions. My advice is to wait and let AfC run its course. There are a lot of good editors over there trying to slog through the backlog. You've done a nice job on it. Onel5969 TT me 21:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I just thought there is a faster way since it was just redirected.Pampi1010 (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, why would you delete the article? Pampi1010 (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Because it was decided, through an AfD, that the article should be redirected. Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Internazionali di Modena error

When someone incorrectly turns an article such as Internazionali di Modena into a redirect and that redirect goes to a tournament that is not the same tournament, you do not revert the person who corrected that. Especially with a reason of "zero sourcing" when there was a source, it was just outdated. That happens when original print articles move. Certainly you could have tagged the article with outdated sources, but be careful in the future. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), actually, that's exactly what could be done. Unreferenced material, as per WP policy, can be removed at any time, and again as per policy (WP:BURDEN), may not be reinstated without proper citations as to meet WP:VERIFY. If you have an issue with the redirect pointing to the wrong tournament, than you should take it to RFD. A non-existent source is not a source. Onel5969 TT me 20:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
You are reading wikipedia wrong! BLP's are one thing but just because something is unreferenced you do not delete it, you'd put it up for deletion. And if it was referenced at one time, and that reference is now broken, you absolutely do not delete it. You would try and fix the once good reference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), actually, I'm not. You don't seem to understand WP policy. WP:VERIFY, a policy, states, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Then it goes further regarding BLP's, and adds, "Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." But you missed the first part, that any material may be removed if unsourced. And then you obviously didn't read further under WP:BURDEN, part of the same policy, which states, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." We do not know it was ever referenced, as we do not know that reference was ever valid. And I have no interest in the article's subject, so no interest in working on it. You have every right to work on the article and provide adequate sourcing. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 00:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a difference. If you see a longstanding article that has no sources or has sources that that link to now dead web pages, and you simply blank the page, you are going to get blocked. I can't tell you how many administrators have told me this. You have to be careful in how you handle things. We had that with this article... and article that was sourced but the link broke. Then we had an editor make a mistake in turning the article into a redirect to an article that had nothing to do with the title. That part was fixed and you reverted it. That was wrong and will always be wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), nope. But you keep telling yourself that. And keep ignoring policy. But this conversation is now over. Onel5969 TT me 01:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Flag of Transkei

Hey mate, what was wrong with the Flag of Transkei page? Seemed like a good idea to move the flag description off the main Transkei page. Lankyant (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Lankyant, there's nothing wrong with the concept of a separate page for a flag, as long as their is in-depth coverage from reliable sources to back up the article's content. The single source in the article is not a reliable source. Hope that helps. Onel5969 TT me 21:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
onel5969, ahh okay thank you, I'll go do some more digging.

Lankyant (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

François Bergeron

Howdy. I was wondering if you see anything fishy going on here? I am guessing at least half the keep votes are, let's say, less than well-intentioned.--- Possibly (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, interesting that all of the keep !votes are from users with less than 1000 edits, several with less than 100. The biggest issue is that none of the keep !votes properly address policy. Several cite GNG, but do not provide any in-depth coverage to back it up. Particularly laughable are the claims that the 7 sources provided in the AfD show he passes GNG, however, looking at them, LAT – only a brief mention; NYT – only a brief mention; Entrepreneur – only a brief mention; Live Design – interview, primary source, doesn’t go to notability; Arabian Business – only a brief mention; Talking Broadway – not even a brief mention, simple listing; New York Festivals – not even a brief mention, simple listing. Also laughable are the claims that he passes musicbio #10 and that simply working on notable productions satisfies GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969: yes I agree on all counts. Just in general, I have the sense that the paid editing playbook may now include training on how to manipulate AfD discussions. E.g. boilerplate votes without much argument made by seemingly genuine accounts with less that 250 edits. IN terms of the Bergeron AfD, I find it very strange that so many keep votes showed up so quickly. I would launch and SPI but I cannot find the thread that connects them. --- Possibly (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, I couldn't find one either. I started to compare their AfD participation, and 4 of them have suspicious timing. But not enough, imho, to bother the good folks over at SPI. Once can only hope that the admin closer doesn't simply count !votes, and bases the decision on policy. Although there are so many which are closed simply on !vote counts, without regard to policy, I don't hold out much hope for that. Onel5969 TT me 02:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969: We're on exactly the same page there. Thanks for taking the time to look into it. --- Possibly (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969/Archive_89&oldid=1137156978"