Loading AI tools
Archive 79:June 2021
 | 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 85 | ← | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | → | Archive 95 |
I think its a reverse copyvio. Check the dates, check the phrasing. That would indeed have been an easy way to deal with it, but... DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Could you take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Clapham_Sheppard when you have time. It needs to be categorized. I tried some categories - might there be more? Joan arden murray (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Joan arden murray, hi. It looks okay. There are folks who specialize in adding cats, but I'm not one of them. I know basic categories, and some specialization in the areas where I create articles (film, NHRP, geo places, and film bios). On your preference page, there's a tab called "gadgets". On that page, in the "Editing" section, there's a gadget called "HotCat". I find that very useful in figuring out cats sometimes, as it autopopulates as you begin to type. You might activate that. Onel5969 TT me 17:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! Will do!Joan arden murray (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
All Thoroughbred racing in the United States is governed by state gambling laws. Hence, there is only one legal source for referencing those races, that being the racetrack proprietor who holds the gambling license. In the case of the Broadway Stakes, it is owned by the New York Racing Association (NYRA) and all information contained in the Wikipedia article on the Broadway Stakes is derived from the referenced NYRA. Note that in this case the NYRA is a government entity owned by the State of New York. In articles where there might be information not covered by the track owner, i.e. comments about the events during the race that the jockey moved too early etc., or a comment that the horse had not run for two months due to an injury, or the winner lost for the first time in four starts, and more. Those comments come from the media and are referenced at Wikipedia to reputable sources such as the Daily Racing Form, Thoroughbred Daily News, the New York Times, Blood-horse magazine and the like. Further, Equibase Co., LLC is an official source having been authorized as such by racetrack owners plus by licensed breeders for pedigree records. However, Equibase Co., LLC only document races back to 1976 and in a great many cases the races created at Wikipedia go way past that to times as early as 1860. Note too, there are defunct/discontinued races from long ago, many of which are because the racetrack closed or were forced to close through state anti-gambling legislation such as the Hart-Agnew Law. For these historically important Wikipedia articles, we use very reliable sources as references. I hope this helps but I think it would be a lot easier for you and others who work hard to ensure quality for Wikipedia but who don't have in-depth expertise on this particular subject to leave a question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing where someone knowledgeable will certainly answer it. Kindly reverse your edit. Thanks. Stretchrunner II (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I saw your comment in your revert. There was a discussion and vote in 2020 to keep "trans fat." See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fat
It was merged anyway despite the large consensus against merger. I announced a month ago I would restore it, there was no opposition, so I did so.
If you have a problem with this, please engage with my points and those made by the many others who opposed the merger, who are a large majority of those who commented.
Declanscottp (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello sir! Onel5969 Please i will love if you can help review this page Aderonke Dairo, she is a well known Nigerian politician, contesting for a big post in the goverment, to avoid impersonation of her identity because of scammers in Nigeria ````
- Hi Deplug1. First, please do not forget to sign your comments with 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. Second, I'm not sure of the notability of that individual, so I'll leave it for other reviewers to take a look at. Personally, I don't think that currently she does meet the criteria. If she gets elected, that would make her notable. Am pinging my go-to editor for Africa articles, Celestina007, to see what they think. Onel5969 TT me 17:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Onel5969, O1, thank you for the notification, not only is the rationale behind the article creation invalid or sound, it is also conflict of interesting editing. Celestina007 (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Celestina007, thanks, as always. Onel5969 TT me 17:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Onel5969, O1, thank you for the notification, not only is the rationale behind the article creation invalid or sound, it is also conflict of interesting editing. Celestina007 (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Please I will like if you get to review the wandile Sihlobo page as it gets to meet with the wikipedia guideline for creating an article. Thanks Johnfelix1234 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Johnfelix1234, hi. Not sure how to make this article's subject notable. What you would need is several in-depth articles about the individual, from independent, reliable sources. Prior to nominating it for deletion, I was unable to find any. Sorry. If you can find them, please add them to the article, and then let me know. Onel5969 TT me 17:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
This is not a mickey mouse article, this is my article, which I created, it is not vandalism. the definition of a new historical movement is something complex, not perceptible in the present. You don't like it, you don't agree but why the fuck do you want to delete it if it is supported by reliable and certain sources. This is not a game or an article made to play, by the way it must be expanded anchored to the sources. --Peter39c (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC) This article cannot be attributed to a WP: CRYSTAL, because the origins of this renewal are in the present and partly already in the past with laws and decrees issued by the Italian government on the action of the European Union. The main reference is Draghi's speech to the Italian parliament, a speech of hope, the beginning of a new historical course. --Peter39c (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Could you move the Fox Sports Soccer '99 page to the Actua Soccer 2 redirect? I'm currently editing pages based on video games produced in the UK and the game i'm requesting to move has it's US title. I know I can do a request on the page i've forgotten the name to in this term, but the page that does so is very complicated and confusing. Sorry if i'm being a bit of a pest, but I know well that you can do that thing.
Oh, and for updates on the Bohbot page, i've forgotten to inform anybody who frequently edits on that page about my idea for a three-way split. Luigitehplumber (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I had zero chance to address the tag before it was deleted! Left reason on article talk page and cannot find deleting editor now.--A21sauce (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- A21sauce, with articles which meet speedy criteria, which this one did, there is no need to "address the tag". The time to contest the tag is when you create the article, and avoid the reason it was speedied. In this case, this article had been deleted as per a deletion discussion. Your recreating it is grounds for speedy deletion. If you feel the subject material now passes notability criteria, the proper procedure is to create the article in draftspace, and go through the AfC process. You've now recreated a blank article for some bizarre reason and left a commentary in the edit summary, "Unclear how "a page where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion and/or blanked the page in good faith." " However, not sure where you came up with that, since the speedy notice you received clearly said it was a G4 deletion, with the detail that it was a recreation of a deleted article, and provided a link to the deletion discussion. Onel5969 TT me 17:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I see that you reviewed the article I wrote about the Macronympha album Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I notice, though, that in place of the article I wrote there is now just a page redirect to Macronympha. First, were you the editor that replaced the album article with a page redirect? And if so, I think I understand why this was done, but could you clarify your reasoning? --Joeyvandernaald (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Joeyvandernaald, hi. I turned it into a redirect, citing WP:NALBUM. Other than the Hutson source, there really isn't in-depth coverage about the album from reliable sources. Several of the sources are simply blogs, therefore not reliable. The Audio Drudge is a simple listing in an all-inclusive guide, similar to having a listing on All Music. They are all-inclusive, so therefore don't really show notability. If there were a couple of more in-depth reviews from reliable sources, it would pass. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 22:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, you reverted my edits on the page Niels Vermeersch, this article is part of the recently updated "notable micronationalists" on the page micronations. The old page in 2017 had almost no content or sources and was redirected to the page of the micronation, this time the page is simular like Travis McHenry and Kevin Baugh . Any suggestions to improve the article? Thank you! --Delle89 (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I hope you checked the sources before simply deleting my work for a simple redirect. He is notable enough, there are long articles detailing his career and should my Chinese be more fluent, I could have expanded it with more details. Albeit that would take a hundred hours using a dictionary. It's a worth a stub. Xia talk to me 17:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello Onel5969,
I notice that you recently moved DR Class V 60 to draft-space.
I am completely at a loss to understand why you did this, as you left nothing but the standard boiler-plate.
The article is not a stub (18 kB), is notable (there are photos from Commons), and has references. It is also part of a group of articles on East German diesel locomotives.
I would not have spent a considerable amount of time translating this from de.wikipedia if I did not think that is was main-space quality from the start.
As I object to this move, could you please undo it, and move the page back to main-space.
Thanks in advance – Iain Bell (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Iain Bell, moved back. It was moved to draft, since it's been tagged for improvement for over a month without any effort made to improve it. While notability isn't a question, WP:VERIFY does come into play. I felt that it was the best option to give the article creator (you) a chance to improve the citations, since any unsourced information can be deleted at any point in time. In this case, that would gut the article. I felt that you had put a lot of effort in, and gutting it would not be appropriate. This happens a lot on articles translated from other Wikis, since most other Wikis do not have the same standards as the English WP. Please make the necessary corrections to the article. And thanks for your contributions to WP. Onel5969 TT me 14:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I noticed the link for the Peabody award winners for this decade redirects to the main Peabody page. What did I do wrong? I was wondering because the Peabody winners for 2020 will be announced this month and I was planning on including them once they are revealed. Will you be able to reinstate the article later? David Matoushek (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- David Matoushek, there was zero content in the article. It's simply redirected until there can be information added. Onel5969 TT me 22:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
OK. Thank you for clarifying.
An Institutional winner has been announced. Can you put the link back up so that I can add said winner?
When you get a chance, could you check this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs._H._D._Warren? Thank you, Joan arden murray (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Joan arden murray, hi. I'm having difficulty with the notability of this one. The first reference is solid, but the second one is weak, and the other three are useless for notability (one is a primary source, and the other two are non-reliable - pinterest and ancestry). Onel5969 TT me 21:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay. I will do more work. Thank you,Joan arden murray (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I`ve fixed it now, I hope. Take another look. Is she notable enough for wikipedia? Thank you for telling me. Don`t mind if it`s not. I am learning. If she isn`t notable enough, should I take it down? Joan arden murray (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay. I will do more work. Thank you,Joan arden murray (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 |
The Original Barnstar |
| For revieweing my articles! Thank you! Princess of Ara(talk) 18:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC) |
- Thank you, Princess of Ara. Onel5969 TT me 03:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Why did you revert? I tried compiling most of A Night Without Stars and The Abyss Beyond Dreams before recompiling it. It's following the same formulation behind Void Trilogy. Aren't you happy with it? Regards:Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)
- Hi Elan Morin Tedronai - because what you did is called a "cut and paste move" which is not allowed on WP. Please see WP:CUTANDPASTE. It has to do with attribution and copyright rules. Onel5969 TT me 03:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969:: Can't we incorporate some material into it from other sites, but preserve the core of the Chronicle of the Fallers with the cover images? Without WP:CUTANDPASTE but without WP:REDIRECT? Like in the vein of Void Trilogy? Regards:Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)
- Well, it looks looks like we can do one of two things. Option one, create an article on the second book; or option two, change the article on the first book into an article on the two-book series, and incorporate both books. In the first option, I would leave the title of the series as a redirect to the first book, and simply create the second book's article (assuming it passes WP:NBOOK). If you wish to do the second option, I can "move" the article into the title of the series, and then you could work on expanding it to included the second book. Let me know. Onel5969 TT me 21:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- In 1 article The Chronicle of the Fallers to concentrate all from say A Night Without Stars and I and why not you try to work on expanding it and include the second book without WP:CUTANDPASTE. Like it's with Peter F. Hamilton's Commonwealth Saga and Void Trilogy. Like on every saga from this sci-fi space opera branch as Foreigner Universe, Alliance-Union Universe, Vorkosigan Saga, Deathstalker series, Ender's Game series, Hyperion Cantos and Saga of the Skolian Empire. They don't have article on every single book. The Night's Dawn Trilogy might be exclusion since it's well around 3 thousand pages and probably deserves such general article of the series which is quite comprehensive. But we can work on the The Chronicle of the Fallers: concentrate the novels' synopsis there and covers even ISBNs there. Regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)
- Well, it looks looks like we can do one of two things. Option one, create an article on the second book; or option two, change the article on the first book into an article on the two-book series, and incorporate both books. In the first option, I would leave the title of the series as a redirect to the first book, and simply create the second book's article (assuming it passes WP:NBOOK). If you wish to do the second option, I can "move" the article into the title of the series, and then you could work on expanding it to included the second book. Let me know. Onel5969 TT me 21:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Can you help me find good references? Almost everything in Google is fandom page and most results refer to Crydee.com and Midkemia.Fandom. Can you help me find good references and move these articles back to the featured ones or at least working ones? Although, yeah: the information is from these sites for sure. But we can find them somewhere else or credit and refer to at least Crydee.com, although most is in form of FAQs. Regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)
Osten Ard
Most of the information is translated from the German Wikipedia, but we can find references apart from "Memory, Sorrow and Thorn Fandom" Wikia. They are nice, but no fan-sites can be sited as references here. We can find surely some references up there apart from fandom information. OstenArd.com would be good for sure. Regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)
Hi, I don't know why you redirect the page without any valid reason. But, I am going to remove redirect of this page and improve this page. This page should deserve an independent article. KungfuPanda2008 (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi - you claimed the Shira Ruderman page wasn't sourced well enough. I disagree - there are many secondary, independant sources used throughout the page. If you have a question about a specific claim flag it, not the entire page.Kalman (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Kalman, I didn't tag it for not being well-sourced I tagged it for dubious notability. Onel5969 TT me 23:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Onel5969, Indeed, however the reasons for fixing dubious notability, are - and I quote from the box - "demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it." This page has multiple sources, and I see no reason to keep the tag on the page. Kalman (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Kalman, multiple sources by themselves are irrelevant. It is the quality, depth and independence of the sourcing. Onel5969 TT me 13:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Onel5969, Obviously. Seeing as she has a page in another language, and that all the facts in the English version are sourced from legitimate, objective sources talking about her activism and contribution to society, I see no reason to tag it for dubious notability. I'd appreciate your reasoning for doing so.
- Kalman, multiple sources by themselves are irrelevant. It is the quality, depth and independence of the sourcing. Onel5969 TT me 13:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- Onel5969, Indeed, however the reasons for fixing dubious notability, are - and I quote from the box - "demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it." This page has multiple sources, and I see no reason to keep the tag on the page. Kalman (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello there. I saw that you (I think quite reasonably) reverted my changes that turned the redirect at 333 (Bladee album) into an article of its own. I was busy with things outside of Wikipedia at the time, and so didn't include as many sources or as much detail as I should have. Would you object to my reverting it back and adding the sources and information that I have since found? Swadge2 (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
You have set the following message with the above title to my Talk page:
An article you recently created, John B Judkins Company, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 14:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
However, I did not create the article entitled John B Judkins Company. On 16:18, 7 May 2021, I redirected John B Judkins Company to John B. Judkins Company to add a period after the letter "B". I therefore suggest that you inform the creator of the article entitled John B Judkins Company of your concerns and actions. Corker1 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Robert (Bic) Bicknell (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC) I have updated and extended the article on George Fitzsimmons and replaced the redirrect. Does the article now meet the standards. If not, can you explain what needs to be done, please?
Robert (Bic) Bicknell (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC). I have updated contents and references for George Fitzsimmons and over written the redirect. While I anticipate it conforms to requirements, please advise me if it is deficient and what I need to do to address the deficiencies. Robert
- Robert (Bic) Bicknell - the company may very well be notable, but currently it is not sourced well enough to be in mainspace. What you need is several in-depth articles about the company from independent sources. Hope that helps. Onel5969 TT me 14:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Robert (Bic) Bicknell (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC) The organisation was a Not for Profit Friendly or Mutual Society that was one of the driving forces behind the Federation of the Australian Colonies into the Commonwealth of Australia. It was also involved in other social betterments. Some of the things they proposed I do not agree with nonetheless it is part of their history. There is a book being published this year by Monash University Press by two notable Australian historians that I have seen some advanced chapters from. There are other publications about the ANA and its key people. I am happy to build on these. However I have been critisised before for using physical references and not having material this is accessible on line. Bic
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Billy Bob Thompson. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 13#Billy Bob Thompson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 108.56.139.120 (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello Onel5969
Richmond Primary School is one of many South Australian primary schools with a Wikipedia page. The school foundation stone was laid in the the presence of three future Premiers of South Australia and a world renowned wine maker. Part of the school is also heritage listed. If you consider deletion of this page is warranted, then the same principle should be applied to all of primary schools in South Australia with their own Wikipedia page. I am in the process of collecting more information on the history, notable students and staff. I'd be interested in further thoughts on why it should be deleted. kind regards. Reflexio (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi I joined Wikipedia recently to create more diversity, inclusion and equity for black designers and black architects on this platform. The subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Admassu) who's article you propose to delete accomplished to be appointed as a professor at Columbia University, win several awards and has his work exhibited a the MoMA. All of this is well documented in the reference section.
There are only 2% of architects who are black in the United States and even less who teach at an Ivy League school. The architecture profession has along history of denying access to the black community which is mirrored in their lack of representation within publications, magazine, exhibitions, museum and news articles. So, when you ask for more 'in depth' coverage, there is not much available because of a historic and continuous issue on equity. You will see that all sources are 'real' sources from accomplished institutions as well as the New York Times or ArtForum who are considered independent sources reporting on the topic.
It would be great if the Wikipedia community can actually support to create real equity so there is black representation within the discipline of architecture. Our voice and decisions can make a difference. Soupmaker (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker
- Soupmaker, when I look at articles, I do not care of the race, gender, ethnicity, etc. of the subject. The issue is simply whether or not they meet WP's notability criteria. For what constitutes that see WP:GNG. Now, in some special instances, like in the academic fields, there are guidelines called SNG's, which also help. That one would be WP:NACADEMIC. Unfortunately, Admassu does not seem to meet any of the criteria for either. Onel5969 TT me 18:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, but it is not as simple as you make it sound here. I was thinking that way (let's not look at race, gender etc and treat everyone equal) before as well, and don't get me wrong, it is very noble, until I realized that we are actually supporting systematic racism with this kind of process. What we need to do is create equity so subjects like this have a voice, platform and are represented and included. Anyhow, I don't want to accuse you or anything so thank you for bringing up WP:NACADEMIC which is very helpful since the subject clearly meets some of these criteria such as well:
-The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
(As noted in the article subject is part of the 'Black Reconstruction Collective' which aims to bring black community inclusion to the discipline of architecture. Their work is shown at the MoMA and they have been invited to give numerous talks across many academic institutions to discuss their work and research. I just added a series of public talks and interviews to the article which showcases that this subject has clearly significant impact in their scholarly discipline by being invited to talk about their work.)
- The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
(the subject won a major award from Rice University -as referenced)
So, would be great if you can have another look at this and see if this fits your reading of the criteria as well. If you still feel strongly to delete the article on the subject please go ahead, but thank you for your time and effort. Soupmaker (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker
Hello, Onel5969. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Crescent Ballroom".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Please see this. For some reason you were not notified despite also participating in the AfD. Polyamorph (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Polyamorph, thanks for the ping. However, I don't think there's any reason for me to comment there. It was clearly canvassing, imho. But that's what it is, simply a humble opinion. I personally think it's silly to waste time at ANI over something like this. The closing AfD admin would address the canvassing issue. Onel5969 TT me 01:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's precisely how I feel. Thanks for the sanity check re: Canvassing. Polyamorph (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- By the way, the only reason I pinged you was because the admin who opened the ANI thread claimed they notified all participants of the AFD. But they missed you...Polyamorph (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
A user has started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Potentially_biased_editor. You may or may not be the subject of the discussion. I am not sure, but ANI rules require people to be notified if being discussed. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I escalated your recent behavior to ANI for resolution. Soupmaker (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker
Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Potentially_biased_editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupmaker (talk • contribs) 06:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 |
Saw you mentioned somewhere. Just sending some good vibes. --- Possibly (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC) |
 |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| For over 479,000 edits on Wikipedia I award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar! Looking forward to when you break 1,000,000. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC) |
Hi Onel5969! Yesterday, you moved my Article Spacehey to Draft:Spacehey. Unfortunately you did not notify me as the rules for moving Articles into draft space require. Would you like to tell me what the reason for the moving was, please, so that I can fix possible problems? Thank you! Halbschwabe (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Halbschwabe, actually I did notify the author, which is required. You are not the author. You contributed to the article. But in answer to your question, the sourcing is terrible. Virtually every ref is either a primary source or a non-reliable source. There is not nearly enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sourcing to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Everything sourced by social media like twitter needs to be removed. My advice is to go through the WP:AFC process, as that will help you develop the article. And by the way, it's not YOUR article, please readWP:OWN. Onel5969 TT me 22:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quick answer! You notified the author of a former version of the article that has been deleted (which indeed isn't shown in the revision history for some reason). I created the page by myself and I wrote an translated the current version of the article (nearly) all by myself. And of course I do know that I do not own that article but I guess we both knew what I meant with "my article", right? Regarding the sources: All twitter sources are just related to simple facts like the number of users or the used programming language, so I guess adding "according to company sources" should fix that.
Read the Bookmarks page first. There are reviews there that indicate notability. Thanks. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I want to ask you that if its okay to add this 1 reliable source on DWBA-FM, ? You were the last admin who reverted the article as redirect because it does not meet gng. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Dear Onel5969,
Could you please detail what is exactly missing during the disclosure or show an example where it is done correctly? I have the disclosure both on the talk page of the article and on my user talk section. I am new to Wikipedia and really unsure what would be missing at this point.
Best, Christoph
Hi, regarding your revert of the cut and paste move of Macdonoghville to McDonoghville. I dropped the ball on requesting a History merge, but a straight page move won't work because both pages have a history. McDonoghville is the correct spelling and Macdonoghville appears only in the article title (not the text, nor the sources). I will revert your reversion and add a {{Histmerge}} tag. Carter (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
In your wisdom to decide to unilaterally redirect the song you’ve redirected it to the wrong album, pal Hildreth gazzard (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hildreth gazzard, really? Cause then the one without wisdom would be the person who created the article and stated that the song came from that album. Pal. But looking at the album it redirects to, it states that title on its list of songs. So not really sure what your point is. Onel5969 TT me 19:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your reverted reason at List of programs aired by A2Z (Philippine TV channel), it is not duplicate. I transfer it there because the broadcast article is full and needs less edits (removing former programming and current and aquired programming are remained). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, no it simply duplicates info on the other page, no reason for a separate article. Onel5969 TT me 12:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is a reason, I did this because the former programming of a network will be continued updating and the broadcast article will be full and needs less spacing. This is also the same as List of programs aired by Kapamilya Channel, [[List of programs aired by GMA Network, etc. So, If you will approve this, I will revert on what I did on List of programs aired by A2Z (Philippine TV channel). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- SeanJ 2007, you don't need my approval. What you do need is to gain consensus. And to do that you need to open a discussion on the talk page to get consensus to split the information from the article to a new article. Once you gain consensus, then you follow the guidelines on how to split an article over at WP:SPLIT. Be aware it can take several weeks for consensus to be reached, so patience is warranted. Onel5969 TT me 11:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is a reason, I did this because the former programming of a network will be continued updating and the broadcast article will be full and needs less spacing. This is also the same as List of programs aired by Kapamilya Channel, [[List of programs aired by GMA Network, etc. So, If you will approve this, I will revert on what I did on List of programs aired by A2Z (Philippine TV channel). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. You reverted the manual move I did to rename Kaal to Kāla. The title of the page is supposed to be Kāla in accordance with both the article's content and the precedent set by every other article of this sort. As I explained in my edit, the move tool does not permit an automatic move thereby apparently making the normal procedure impossible. I therefore don't see how else the article title can be corrected. I'd appreciate if you could explain how I'm supposed to rename the page to the more appropriate title if not by doing it manually. Scyrme (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Scyrme, you have 2 ways to go. First, request the current redirect to be deleted (you would do that through RfD), and once it's deleted, you would move the current article to the title you think it should be. Or, second, you could put in a requested move over at WP:REQMOVE. What you are doing is called a cut and paste move, see WP:CUTANDPASTE, which is not allowed. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 01:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
There are plenty of unsourced oneliners, eg. Indian Klan pages, but you attack a sourced article. Please explain me your logic. Is globo.com unreliable? Grupo Globo (English: Globo Group), formerly known as Organizações Globo[4] (English: Globo Organization[5]), is the largest mass media group of Latin America. Xx236 (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Xx236, I didn't "attack" anything. WP:OSE is not a valid argument. The article was moved to draft because it does not currently meet either WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY. Currently there is only one in-depth article about him (focusing on the sculpture garden), the others are a very short piece, a simple listing, and a non-reliable source (the latter 2 being added after it was draftified. The article had been tagged for improvement for over a month without any work being done on it. If you come up with at least one other in-depth source from a reliable, secondary reference, as well as sourcing for his academic and theatrical assertions made in the article, that's when it meets GNG and VERIFY. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 12:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Good morning to you, I am writing to greet you and to know how you are. I am quite well for now, I am writing to ask you for help with the page of Alberto Magliozzi, the much appreciated and respected glamor photographer. I wrote down a few lines, but I ask you for help if you can, right and no more than 10 minutes of your precious time. Looking forward to hearing from you I wish you a good day and a greeting from Calabria.--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino, hi there! Not sure what you're asking from me. Another editor has already looked at the article and marked it as reviewed, but it does need copy editing. Onel5969 TT me 00:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Good morning to you, sorry my bad English. I ask you to help make the page more understandable, take your time. I tried to translate it and do something clean, but as I often do, I ask for help from those who have linguistic and technical skills greater than mine. Looking forward to hearing from you I wish you a good day and thank you for everything.--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Some schmuck decides to cut and paste the Douglas C-47's wiki page to sell their die cast toy on eBay and you think that means that the R4D8 article is plagiarized because it has some of the same text? Why not vandalize the C-47 article instead since it's so obvious that the article is plagiarized from an eBay listing? Snowdawg (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Snowdawg, from what you've just written, I am assuming that your assertion is that Douglas R4D-8 contains content that was copied from Douglas C-47 Skytrain, and which had also been copied prior to your creation of the former article by one or more websites, resulting in Onel inadvertently flagging is as a copyright violation? Feel free to correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick, but I'm not seeing any attribution there - are you familiar with the requirements of copying from other Wikipedia articles? Doing so without proper attribution is indeed a copyright violation. Please explain the situation properly and I'll try to tidy things up if I can. Girth Summit (blether) 20:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Pickclick is a site that scans auction websites like eBay. Someone on eBay was selling a toy "Band Of Brothers" die cast model so they decided to copy the wiki article for the Douglas C-47 and use that article to market their auction. Click on the see more arrow anything familiar? https://picclick.fr/Skytrain-C-47-Dakota-D-Day-Airborne-Band-of-Brothers-143061609080.html Now you're saying that I plagiarized an AUCTION website because part of the text from the C-47's wiki page was used to describe the development of the R4D8? Why would I have to list the C-47's wikipage as a source when ALL of the original sources are ALREADY attributed in BOTH articles? So now you're scanning the HyVee Shopper these days looking for plagiarized material? Are you going to flag EVERY article with the words "lost dog" as being plagiarized because you saw it in the HyVee shopper? Congratulations on winning the knee jerk reaction prize!Snowdawg (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Snowdawg, I don't understand what you're saying here: less invective, more explanation please. Did you copy content from Douglas C-47 Skytrain (or some other article) in order to expand content at Douglas R4D-8? If the answer is yes, please just say so, and explain what happened. Copying content from one Wikipedia article to another without attribution is a copyright violation, which needs fixing - I'm not going to block you, or delete the article, but I do need to understand what has happened. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page, rather than carrying on with it here - Onel hasn't done anything wrong, as far as I can work out, he's just identified and flagged a copyright violation which you and I are currently trying to resolve. Girth Summit (blether) 22:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, thanks for the input. It's fine to keep the conversation here. I'd kind of like to know how it turns out. And Snowdawg, there is no way for a page reviewer to know that text has been copied from another WP article unless attribution has been made. That's kind of why it's a copyright violation. And accusing other editors of vandalism is a pretty serious offense on WP. You should be careful about that. Onel5969 TT me 00:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- Take a look at these three screenshots. The first shows the Pickclick search that I supposedly plagiarized from. It's for a die cast model of a C-47 on eBay. If you click on the "see more" link in blue at the bottom right corner it takes you to the English wiki page for the Douglas C-47 which is the second screenshot. I have no idea why Pickclick would link to the wiki article for something sold on eBay? So it's a circular reference. Of course there's going to be the same text because the Pickclick page links back to the C-47's wiki page. As for the text that was removed it's clear that nobody even bothered to look at the text that was removed to figure out if it was properly cited because there are plenty of citations in it. See screenshot three. If you're using some kind of automated internet search program "copyvios" to look for plagiarized text it isn't any good. It shows you're putting zero though into whether the text is a copyright violation or not. Instead you're placing all your faith in a stupid tool.Snowdawg (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- Snowdawg I'm going to ask this one more time, as simply as I can: did you copy text from the C-47 article into the R4-8 article? Girth Summit (blether) 06:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- The development sequence is like this DC-2 > DC-3 > C-47 > DC-3S > R4D8/C-117. The R4D8/C-117 was developed from the civilian DC-3S or "Super DC-3". The DC-3S had a new tail, new wings, lengthened fuselage, new engines, and enclosed landing gear. The DC-3S weren't entirely new aircraft they were 75% new aircraft. Customers could send Douglas a DC-3/C-47 and they would convert them to DC-3S standards. The R4D8/C-117 were US Navy C-47s converted to DC-3S standards and given the designation R4D8/C-117. You can't describe the evolution of the R4D8/C-117 without mentioning the C-47 and DC-3S. Just like you can't describe the 1900s without mentioning the 1800s. There wasn't a World War II without a World War I. WHY WOULDN'T I be able to take what's already documented in the C-47 article describing the DC-3S and modify it slightly to include its relationship to the R4D8 if ALL of the ORIGINAL sources for the C-47 article are cited? I'm not removing or obscuring ANY of the original citations from the C-47 articel. In fact I am adding content and citations. So you're telling me that I need to make a citation of a citations citation? So I can't use ANY of the same wording from the C-47 article such as (new tail, new wings, lengthened fuselage, new engines, and enclosed landing gear) because it was used in the C-47 article? If that's the case please feel free to delete the article. Also I'm not the ONLY person to edit that article. Why not harass the other contributors? Snowdawg (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Snowdawg I'm going to ask this one more time, as simply as I can: did you copy text from the C-47 article into the R4-8 article? Girth Summit (blether) 06:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Snowdawg, I don't understand what you're saying here: less invective, more explanation please. Did you copy content from Douglas C-47 Skytrain (or some other article) in order to expand content at Douglas R4D-8? If the answer is yes, please just say so, and explain what happened. Copying content from one Wikipedia article to another without attribution is a copyright violation, which needs fixing - I'm not going to block you, or delete the article, but I do need to understand what has happened. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page, rather than carrying on with it here - Onel hasn't done anything wrong, as far as I can work out, he's just identified and flagged a copyright violation which you and I are currently trying to resolve. Girth Summit (blether) 22:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Pickclick is a site that scans auction websites like eBay. Someone on eBay was selling a toy "Band Of Brothers" die cast model so they decided to copy the wiki article for the Douglas C-47 and use that article to market their auction. Click on the see more arrow anything familiar? https://picclick.fr/Skytrain-C-47-Dakota-D-Day-Airborne-Band-of-Brothers-143061609080.html Now you're saying that I plagiarized an AUCTION website because part of the text from the C-47's wiki page was used to describe the development of the R4D8? Why would I have to list the C-47's wikipage as a source when ALL of the original sources are ALREADY attributed in BOTH articles? So now you're scanning the HyVee Shopper these days looking for plagiarized material? Are you going to flag EVERY article with the words "lost dog" as being plagiarized because you saw it in the HyVee shopper? Congratulations on winning the knee jerk reaction prize!Snowdawg (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Snowdawg, I don't appreciate your tone: I can only assume that you have not read what I have actually written above, or followed the link I gave you in my first post. Nobody is saying that you can't take material from one article to another: I'm telling you that when you do that, you have to provide clear attribution. This is a strict requirement of our creative commons license, and of our WP:COPYVIO policy. Attribution also prevents situations like this from arising. So, for what I hope will be the last time: did you copy content from one article to another? If the answer is yes, tell me which diffs were the addition of content from another article, and I will fix the attribution problem for you. For future reference, please read WP:CWW so that you understand how to do this properly in future. Girth Summit (blether) 12:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why would anyone claim I plagiarized text from a shady auction site crawler like picklick? I already showed you in the screenshots that I put in my commons temporary directory that Pickclick linked to the wiki page for the C-47 and that's why some text matches. Why they did that I have no idea!
Here's what I took directly from the C-47 article: Design and development During World War II, the armed forces of many countries used the C-47 and modified DC-3s for the transport of troops, cargo, and wounded. The US Navy designation was R4D. More than 10,000 aircraft were produced in Long Beach and Santa Monica, California, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Between March 1943 and August 1945, the Oklahoma City plant produced 5,354 C-47s.
Here's what I modified slightly: Variants YC-129 DC-3S prototype for evaluation by USAF redesignated C-47F and later passed to USN as R4D-8X. R4D-8 Remanufactured R4D-5, R4D-6, and R4D-7 aircraft with stretched fuselage, Wright R-1820 engines, fitted with modified wings and redesigned tail surfaces; redesignated C-117D in 1962. R4D-8L R4D-8 converted for Antarctic use with deleted oil coolers, ski landing gear, nose mounted weather radar, and JATO gear redesignated LC-117D in 1962. R4D-8T R4D-8 navigation trainer, redesignated TC-117D in 1962. R4D-8Z R4D-8 converted as a staff transport, redesignated VC-117D in 1962.
So the question is how many different ways can I reword "R4D-8 navigation trainer, redesignated TC-117D in 1962." without being dinged for copyright infringement? If you're claiming copyright infringement based on Google searches that's really dumb because searches propagate to other search engines and links are made for unrelated items. That doesn't mean I copied copyrighted text from fifteen different sites. Which brings me back to my whole "knee jerk" reaction argument. You can't flag EVERYTHING that matches a search criteria as copyright infringement without understanding the context of what the search produced. Like I said earlier that would be like claiming that the wiki page for Robinson Crusoe is a copyright infringement of the HyVee Shopper based on the words "lost" and "dog". I really don't see the point of citing a wiki article that already cites another published source? Because that's a citation of a citation. Snowdawg (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Snowdawg, I don't know why I keep needing to repeat myself. I will try again:
- Nobody is saying that you cannot copy material from other Wikipedia articles; sometimes, that's a really useful thing to do. However, when you do it, you must provide attribution, showing which article the content comes from. That is a firm policy-based requirement, since it is needed to comply with the license we release our content under.
- A side benefit of providing attribution is that it allows New Page Reviewers like Onel to be able to work out that something has not been copied from a website in cases where it is the website that has actually been copied from us. We don't flag EVERYTHING that matches an internet hit - we flag newly-created content which matches websites which predate the creation of the content, and only when there is no attribution that would let the reviewer know that the content has come from a pre-existing article.
- It is too much to expect reviewers to look at the websites and see whether they can work our whether the content was lifted from a pre-existing article. The onus is on you to follow basic policy, and provide attribution whenever you copy anything from an existing article, allowing reviewers to see that it's not a violation. Onel was following well-established good practice when he added that tag - nobody is harassing you, this situation has arisen because you failed to follow the guidance at WP:CWW.
- I see that another administrator has put a notice in an edit summary, linking the source for the original content. If you indicate that you have now understood why this situation has occurred, and that you will undertake not to copy content without attribution again, we can draw a line under this and move on. Girth Summit (blether) 15:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Onel5969,
Please do not tag pages as CSD G5 unless the page creator and primary contributor is a confirmed sockpuppet. In this case, the page creator was cleared in the SPI case. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- Liz, apologies. On the NPP queue, there appeared a warning that the article had been created by a blocked user, and then when I checked that editor's page, there was a warning about sockpuppetry. Obviously, I did not read it carefully enough and took it to be a block for sockpuppetry, rather than a simple suspicion. Onel5969 TT me 13:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello One15969, I see you reverted my changes on foodporn and sent the page back to food_porn. Not sure if you realized, but they are 2 separate things - the concept and the company. I see that GeneralNotability made the redirect over a year ago, however the company has several notable articles since this time, including from Forbes at https://www.forbes.com/sites/eveturowpaul/2020/11/23/restauranteurs-look-to-australia-for-a-guide-on-surviving-a-winter-lockdown/?sh=696f4865279a, which I included. Did you check these before putting back in the redirect? Kind regards Hamilton677 (talk)
- (talk page stalker) articles by Forbes Contributors are not considered reliable, since basically anyone can register as a contributor and write content, which receives very little in the way of editorial oversight. See the Forbes entry at WP:RSP for more on this. Girth Summit (blether) 10:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I did. And the current sourcing consists of primary sourcing, non-reliable sourcing, dead links, and simple mentions. In 3 of the references Foodporn is not even mentioned. This is not the in-depth sourcing from independent, secondary, reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Onel5969, Hi again. There were certainly no dead links as I take care to check those, and I didn't know about Forbes contributor articles. Are any Forbes articles considered reliable as they are obviously a big company? Is there any way you can put the article back into draft as I can't seem to find the text as you deleted it all with the redirect. Thanks Hamilton677 (talk)
- {u|Onel5969}} yes I just saw User:Girth Summit's comments on Forbes contributors, thanks for that. Can you please put the article back into draft as it seems you have deleted it entirely by putting in the redirect and I can't see any way to save the draft unless you can see it elsewhere. Thanks Hamilton677 (talk)
- Done. Moved to draft space, you can find it at Draft:Foodporn. Onel5969 TT me 02:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@One15969: Thanks for that. If and when some new, notable articles are written about the subject, I'll make the necessary amendments. If not, it can stay in draft. Have a great weekend. Hamilton677 (talk)
Hi onel, i've already remake the articles Wanyang Budaebuin....If you don't mind, could you please look and check into it? Ningsih ODINN (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ningsih ODINN, hi. No, not interested in looking at new articles you create until you clean up the hundreds of articles you've created in the past. Many have been tagged needing improvement for well over a month, and you continue to ignore the tags, making work for other editors. Might I suggest you focus on those before going on to create more articles. Onel5969 TT me 12:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Please tell, what are the comments to the written article Draft:Syres’ Bolyaien’? What exactly should be changed in it?--Тарас Дем'яненко (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Тарас Дем'яненко, hi. Please WP:UPE. Onel5969 TT me 22:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Excuse me, are you sending me to the Paid editors page? I do not write an article about myself, or about my boss, or about my friend. Explain how this applies to me?--Тарас Дем'яненко (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Тарас Дем'яненко, if what you say above is true, how do you explain that you are the person who took the picture of the article's subject used in the article? Onel5969 TT me 12:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Because I am a political scientist, I study the national movements of the Finno-Ugric and Turkic peoples. I attend events, scientific conferences, take photos of various politicians - it does not mean that I am a friend of all these people. --Тарас Дем'яненко (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Тарас Дем'яненко, if what you say above is true, how do you explain that you are the person who took the picture of the article's subject used in the article? Onel5969 TT me 12:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Excuse me, are you sending me to the Paid editors page? I do not write an article about myself, or about my boss, or about my friend. Explain how this applies to me?--Тарас Дем'яненко (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
From a brief perusal of Special:Contributions/Miamiaim, this may be a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sidowpknbkhihj. There's a similar obsession with earthquakes and aviation incidents. I'm not familiar with this case at all, so I'm not comfortable filling a sock report. Could you take a look? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- BilCat, hi there. Not sure it's a sock. I did a comparison of them and the sockpuppeteer's last 3 socks, see here, and they have no articles in common. The comparison with the sockpuppeteer does reveal one hit, see here, but I'm thinking this is just a coincidence. Onel5969 TT me 22:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain why you redirect them as per WP:SPLIT and why did you oppose the split? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, as has already been explained, does not meet WP:SPLIT, which also explains my opposition. Onel5969 TT me 18:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, per WP:PROD it should have remained for seven days. I'm surprised you didn't check this. NemesisAT (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- NemesisAT, I'm surprised that you don't know that prods only need to remain in place for 7 days for the article to be deleted. Prods are routinely removed at any point during the prod process by changing the article to a redirect. This is a form of objecting to deletion, which is allowed at anytime. Onel5969 TT me 13:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- WP:PROD does not appear to state that turning an article into a redirect is an objection to deletion. Apologies if I've missed it. NemesisAT (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- NemesisAT, doesn't have to explicitly state it. It's common sense, and it's also consensus through historical activity. It essentially removes the prod, which is, by definition, an objection. Onel5969 TT me 14:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Onel5969 Sounds like you're bending the guideline retrospectively to suit your actions. If it's consensus through historical activity, why has that never been added to the guideline any time between 2007 and now? NemesisAT (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- NemesisAT, no, simply stating a fact. This happens quite frequently, and you're lack of AGF is somewhat surprising. When you do work at NPP you see it at least several times a week. Onel5969 TT me 19:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Onel5969, I'm struggling to assume good faith when I put effort into restoring an article and you tried to remove that without any discussion, quoting policy that simply doesn't exist according to the relevant policy page. In unrelated matters, the new "reply link" feature isn't working on your talk page. Would you be happy to remove the custom borders to see if that's what is breaking it? The reply link tool improves accessibility, so it's a shame it doesn't work on your page. Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- NemesisAT, no, simply stating a fact. This happens quite frequently, and you're lack of AGF is somewhat surprising. When you do work at NPP you see it at least several times a week. Onel5969 TT me 19:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Onel5969 Sounds like you're bending the guideline retrospectively to suit your actions. If it's consensus through historical activity, why has that never been added to the guideline any time between 2007 and now? NemesisAT (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- NemesisAT, doesn't have to explicitly state it. It's common sense, and it's also consensus through historical activity. It essentially removes the prod, which is, by definition, an objection. Onel5969 TT me 14:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- WP:PROD does not appear to state that turning an article into a redirect is an objection to deletion. Apologies if I've missed it. NemesisAT (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2021) I want to you help me to fix this? I fixed many parts but I dont know why it still hereMohamed IT (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Mohamed IT, I have no idea what you're talking about. Onel5969 TT me 19:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
look my page Degodia clan and tell me what is wrong about it You put template This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page one issue was the orphan page so I linked to many related pages I fixed orphan also I added many reliable sources look my page please so I will fix it type (Degodia clan) you will see
- Mohamed IT - it needed more references in order to pass WP:VERIFY, which seems to be mostly satisfied now. The History section could use more footnotes. Also, be wary of WP:CITEBOMB, you only need one or two citations, in several areas you've put multiple. I also broke out the extra sourcing you included at the end. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 12:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Mohamed:IT I corrected the errors now take a look bro.
- Mohamed IT - looks okay now, except for the citebomb issue, have removed the tag. Nice job. Onel5969 TT me 00:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Mohamed:IT I corrected the errors now take a look bro.
- Mohamed IT Bro I wanted to rename the page from Degodia (Clan) to just Degodia so the people will find easier but I tried to rename the page but moved and it become redirect so help me rename
- Mohamed IT I have seen that wikipedia when you rename page it just creates a redirect page with different name people will in see google search degodia clan but when they enter they see Degodia
So can you please make the page to its original name with no different name before my two tried moves.
Hi. I have added two additional references to the article Ivette Román-Roberto that you tagged, including a page from the National Association of Latino Arts and Culture website and an article from the Houston Press, in addition to the seven I included in the article previously. Is this sufficient to address your concerns about notability and additional citations? There are now nine sources.--Lawrlafo (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Lawrlafo, hi. It's not the number of references, but the quality and source of those references. Notability is about in-depth (significant) coverage from independent, reliable sources. The two new sources do not add either. The NALAC piece is not independent, and the mention in the Houston Press is not in-depth enough. If the Press article had been entirely about her, that would qualify, and then if you could come up with one or two more like it, than that would work. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Onel5969, thanks. I will try to identify more in-depth sources. I believe source number 5 does meet the criteria of being in-depth, independent, and from a reliable source: it is an academic article by a professor, published by an academic press. (Platón Lázaro, Lydia. "Screaming Soundscapes: The Sounds of Puerto Rican Contemporary Performance in the Work of Teresa Hernández and Ivette Román." In The Body, the Dance and the Text: Essays on Performance and the Margins of History, edited by Brynn Wein Shiovitz. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2019. ISBN 1476671893)--Lawrlafo (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Onel5969,
You recently tagged the stub modern day missions I created with a G11 speedy deletion tag. The article was written from an unbiased, neutral opinion and I would like to see if you could give me a more detailed explanation to why you have flagged it with the unambiguous advertising or promotion tag? It is written almost identical to countless other Christian organization stubs, SEND International & Pioneers and again is written from a neutral point of you with various sources. G11 also states, "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." I kindly ask you to retract your tag and provide me feedback to how I can improve it to your liking. I love contributing to religious articles, stubs and I would like to do my best for these. Kstorts11 (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Kstorts11, that article has now been deleted twice for advertising. And to be deleted it has to be tagged for deletion (which I did), and then actually deleted after review by an admin. Which was also done. The article was clearly promotional in tone. The two articles you point to are simply factual in nature. One of them might not be notable, and definitely is not sourced enough. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 12:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Rachel Wolfe-Goldsmith, 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!
I am removing this PROD on the grounds that in the prod statement, her organization might pass WP:GNG. If that's the case then there should be some discussion on the talk page on potentially moving the article to draft space and re-making it as a different page. Or, potentially putting it up for AfD. --Tautomers(T C) 06:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC).
Not sure where to put this, but I'm not sure why DiJonai Carrington was proposed for deletion. Per WP:NBASKET, players who have appeared in the Women's National Basketball Association meet WP:NBASKET. Carrington has played in the WNBA per her profile. Therefore, she meets WP:NBASKET and the page should not be deleted. I tried to look for a deletion discussion, but couldn't find one. If you could direct me to such a discussion, I would appreciate it. Swimmer33 (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Swimmer33, actually, the link to her profile you provided shows that the page doesn't exist. Because she hasn't played in the league yet. If she does play in the league, you'd be correct. Onel5969 TT me 00:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- She has played in the league this season multiple times. This link right here: https://www.wnba.com/player/dijonai-carrington/#/career shows that she has played in the league, 13 games (and counting) and is also currently on the Sun roster. Which would make her qualify for the WP:NBASKET requirements. Is there another reason for proposed deletion that we are missing? Wnbafan11 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Wnbafan11: Passing WP:NBASKET does not automatically make a person notable, rather it means that the subject is likely to have the significant coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. Like their NBA counterpart, most WNBA players usually pass WP:GNG with ease. That is the case with Carrington, as there is ample coverage on her available on the internet, something that a simple and short WP:BEFORE would have shown. I added a few sources and deproded the article. Alvaldi (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- She has played in the league this season multiple times. This link right here: https://www.wnba.com/player/dijonai-carrington/#/career shows that she has played in the league, 13 games (and counting) and is also currently on the Sun roster. Which would make her qualify for the WP:NBASKET requirements. Is there another reason for proposed deletion that we are missing? Wnbafan11 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
| Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive |  |
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I don't recall the details on that page as to when and why I was editing it. Possibly something connected to some vandalism? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Baseball Bugs, no worries. Since it's deleted, can't check history, but you may have created a redirect subsequent to the AfD discussion. In that instance, the auto tagging program might have recognized you has the "article creator". Onel5969 TT me 14:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks - that sounds vaguely familiar. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
