User talk:Onel5969/Archive 111

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 105

←

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

→

Archive 115

Archive 111: February 2023

Hello! I have updated the page on the Institue which you tagged as having issues with notability and primary sources. I believe I added what is required but please let me know if you'd like to see anything more specific. My motivation for creating the page is due to how many news article recently publishing are referencing its reporting of the Memphis police killing of Tyre Nichols. Still, from my research, the organization had some degree of notability before that. [[User: LowElectrical9168| LowElectrical9168]] ([[User talk: LowElectrical9168|talk]]) 7:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I voted to delete Penzance, Arizona, then afterward noticed you had created it. I've also had a few interesting places nominated for deletion because they were working towns, with no permanent population. It's unfortunate there isn't some other category where we could put these once-important places. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, the rules changed regarding populated places a couple of years ago, so many of these places are getting deleted. While I don't disagree with some of the deletions, many are of places which were populated at one time or the other, but are no longer in existence, so there are few, if any, online sources about them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to watch Wikipeda, but I think that you should keep in mind that - as a rule of thumb - every bigger building in Europe built before 1800 is either notable per

) 13:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no auto notability for old buildings. NBUILD clearly states "Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." (emphasis mine). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean the part "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable." And most of significant pre-1800 buildings are on national heritage lists here in Europe and usually much more than simple statistics is available in libraries for them. It means that it is not reasonable to delete such articles without discussion - you can demand sources in case of doubt or even start an AfD, but it is not helpful to delete the content without asking. More so if it is a

Basilica Minor, which means that a Pope must have risen it by a special decree, which is rather exceptional.Jan Spousta (talk

) 18:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. I've never deleted a single article. And if an article is sourced that it is on a national heritage listing, than by all means it should remain. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, here is the diff: [1]. You have deleted an article about a Basilica Minor translated from the Hungarian Wikipedia and replaced it by a redirect.Jan Spousta (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the difference. But no, I didn't delete the article. As I've said, I've never deleted an article. But what I did do, as per WP policy, I removed uncited information. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no WP policy allowing immediate removal of uncited information except in cases like libel (living persons) or clear lies.Jan Spousta (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Simply incorrect. "Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

But not IMMEDIATELY removed in most cases. Under normal circumstances you should require the citation using the "Citation needed" template and give some time to the author to find the references. There are exceptions, of course, but none of them is valid here. And moreover, not everything needs an inline citation (

WP:MINREF).Jan Spousta (talk

) 14:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Wrong again. There is no time frame mentioned, so immediately is included. And there is no policy to indicate any of what you said applies. Now, we're done here. Learn the policies. And since this is a waste of time, any further posts from you on this subject will simply be deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jan Spousta: Just to add on this: I have seen this user often deleting articles that were definitely well written and sufficiently sourced, without any prior notice. I do not believe this behavior is very aligned with the collaborative nature of the project, and risks to disincentivize contributions. I hope this can help in promoting constructive change.--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your review for the pages I recently created. You've left comments regarding the complete absence of the entity, that the article was created for, in the references.

To clarify:

There were two kings who ruled by the name Shivadeva. The article is for Shivadeva the First (Shivadeva I) the other one being

.

On the name of the kings (Sivadeva or Shivadeva). All the references use Shivadeva for Shivadeva I and some references use Sivadeva for Shivadeva II. However, the correct spelling for both would be Shivadeva as the names are derived from a significant deity in Hinduism, Lord Shiva.

I hope this addresses your comments on the articles. If not, could you please suggest ways to improve them? Thanks :)

) 14:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks for the explanation, have moved both back to mainspace and added alt spelling. Thanks for your efforts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Appreciate your efforts.

talk

) 15:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have restored the references which Wikipedia's page translation tool removed from the article as I translated it (again, not my creation). What can be done about the tool causing this problem? It seems like a lot of unnecessary work, and I know I will be less likely to use that tool in the future. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure about tool glitches. Not my bailiwick. Will ping another user who I know loves looking at tools and coding and all that stuff. Hey Novem Linguae, any thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Londonbeat41692. Mind providing a diff? And also maybe the name of the tool or how to access it? I'm not aware of a translation tool so I need a hint as to what you're using, e.g. the user script link or the gadget name. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Can the page be reviewed and restored now? As you can see, it has references from major third party publications (although I will look for more to add to it as I have time), as it had from the start on Japanese Wikipedia. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for checking this page. I undid your (total) deletion because I thought it was a mistake. The article had all necessary sources (needed at this time) who can be verified in objective dutch webpages and news sites. You verified the 2022 page and it doesn't have any more sources. So I don't really understand why you first: deleted the whole page of the 2023 season and now you only kept a small part. This season is still ongoing and eventually more sources will be added... --SmartGwen (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. First, the page did not have nearly enough sourcing to pass

WP:BURDEN, it should not be re-added without proper sourcing. But thanks for reaching out. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and explanation. I'm sorry I didn't see your redirection until the page was deleted. If it can be returned as it was, tomorrow I can add the sources that are available? I'm not sure if that will be enough but it will cover much of the information that was on the page. SmartGwen (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'm curious. How is this a copyright violation of this page? It seems that site posted the page on January 28 and a user on Wikipedia wrote the content a day before here. Mike Allen 15:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for the nudge to provide more citations for the article on Warner E. Hodges. I have inserted quite a few. In your view, are more still needed? I also started a talk page for the article. Rory1262 (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

In my view, everything should be cited, so anything still uncited in the article should be referenced, e.g. "Their last album to date is Halcyon Times (2010)." Hope this helps. But nice job on the article, you might want to consider not having so many short paragraphs. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The paragraph breaks are in large part aimed at clarifying the citations and the parts they support. Rory1262 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You can still do inline citations within a paragraph. But I get why you do it that way. Take a look at an article I created, Harry J. Karns, you'll see that I used citations throughout paragraphs. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Holden Commodore SS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 1 § Holden Commodore SS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969, thank you for your notification on my talk page. Indeed there are sections which are wholly uncited. Yet these sections don't contain quotations, material whose verifiability has been challenged or contentious matter about living persons. I'm curious: what do you see as bold claims that are likely to be challenged? Knowing this I could find sources to these claims. KatVanHuis (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Anything that is not sourced is likely to be challenged, in my point of view, except in the case of broadly known information. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969, thank you for your quick reply. Indeed broadly known information, like i.e. "the capital of France is Paris" does not need to be verified as it is verifiable. The question here is what would be broadly known information and what not; this is a sliding scale. To be honest, I have been editing Wikipedia for several years and I have learned the hard way not to make bold claims, unless adding proper sources. So when composing this article I've chosen to add one claim only. This being: "The entanglement with the existing tram network is an advantage over constructing a separate light metro line." Indeed I hadn't added the resource as I had no expectation anyone would challenge it. All other statements are known, at least to some extent. These statements are verifiable and no original research was added to this article. KatVanHuis (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop contacting me. Do not leave any more messages on my pages.

Thanks.

KatoKungLee (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK), in some scenarios other editors are required to post notices on your talk page, and that this is the case for virtually every example I see of onel5969 contacting you on your talk page other than their inquiry related to SC Staaken. _signed, Rosguill ^talk

19:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I never actively leave any messages no your talk page, except if I've responded to something you've pinged me for. The messages that do get left on your talk page are automatic messages which are left when an action is taken (e.g. nominating a page for deletion, sending an article to draft). The messages regarding draftification are automatic, but I can opt not to send the message. I usually do not look at the name of the editor I am draftifying, so as not to show any predetermination on my part. The others are required to be sent. As you have been doing, simply delete them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have commenced a private discussion about the new user Elttaruuu on a reviewer's talk page. I'd be interested in seeing your opinion before advancing my concerns to ANI. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Mangoe (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I am not at all agree with the reason you given and moved the wiki page to draft.If you notice carefully I have provided reliable, independent source justifying the notability of the source. I would request you to go through the reference once again and move back the article from draft to main space. Risu43 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Good evening, I added sources in the summary of the page and returned the previous page information - adding sources about the production, housemates, nominations and evictions. I also added Episodes that can be retrieved in the Weekly Summary. I hope this gives enough sources needed. --SmartGwen (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this. Looks good now, nice job, another reviewer has already taken a look at it and marked it reviewed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! I’ve been tinkering with pages of UK-based political and business leaders (mainly because that’s where my area of interest lies).

I’ve tried to create a new page for the first time (Leon Emirali page). I picked that subject as I believe they’re fairly notable with good sources (The Times, PR Week etc), but wanted to understand a bit more about the process as this one was deleted and moved to draft.

Happy to work on this one again or chose another topic if you think it categorically doesn’t meet notability criteria

I know you might not have the time, but would you be willing to help out a new Wikipedian with some more feedback on why the article wasn’t approved and what I can do to be a better editor?

Thanks so much Fluffy JoinFluffy250 (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @

) 17:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not the reliability or whether or not they are secondary. It is that none of the sourcing is in-depth coverage of those scholarships, they simply mention them. To show notability, you need references which discuss the subject in-depth. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It does help, thank you. Can the sources be in Spanish, given they are from notable newspapers? Thanks for your help

talk

) 20:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, there is no requirement for sources to be in English. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I have added 13 references to the JdlC article, and another 8 to the RyC article, expanding both articles. The references tackle discussions on the scholarships on the most part. I understand this is what you meant?

talk

) 15:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

May I remove the notability tags, if that's tackled, or should I wait till you do so? I do not know the proper procedure. Thanks

talk

) 15:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm out of energy on that one.

maybe the wiki system should identify people who'd like to get this sort of situation 'over the line', and alert them.

I guess organisations operating in sensitive areas will necessarily have limited media coverage, and therefore limited references - and therefore be structurally underrepresented on Wikipedia. JCJC777 (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but there is very little in-depth coverage that I could find, and only one of the current sources talks about the organization at any depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I really don't have time to waste dealing with the kind of obstacles you present. JQ (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Template:Arizona year nav has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

My villages exist and they are legit places, why it is been moved to draft with the notability tags?AdesamSA (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Please read the notes which were left on your talk page. They explain exactly why. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969, I hope you're doing well. My recent article Gajesh Naik had some issues to deal with, so I thought maybe I'll ask you if this certain admin is correct. Could you please check this edit [2] if they are right on their part? I wonder why this source can't be actually considered a as "RS". Is it because it's written like a blog post?

Also here's the link to the source that was removed along with the content [3]. Please do let me know if they're alright on their part or if it's a mistake? I'd just like to know more about it, since I do trust your intentions well. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 12:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the crypto source, I would agree with their assessment that it is non-rs, looking at the sites editorial policies and funding. And that editor is very good editor, who, although I do not always agree with, I respect. Crypto sources are notoriously unreliable, as you can see in this brief discussion last year about RS's: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#Coinmarketcap.com, in which that editor took part. I would not disagree with their assessment of that crypto source.

I also just took a look at the AfD, and I do not agree that you were edit warring. You might have reached out to that editor and asked them to explain their RS comment. Indian sources are notoriously unreliable, many of them relying on churnalism, rather than journalism. I had an off-wiki discussion with an editor from that part of the world just yesterday on Indian sources, and TOI's reliability has drastically deteriorated over the past several years. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

About

. I believe I noticed some progress being made somehow, which was by your creations.

Anyhow, could you possibly indicate agreement that several sets of photos, including some for the Martinez store, should be deleted from Commons, at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_from_npgallery.nps.gov_or_catalog.archives.gov? I want to make progress there, will request that some admin come by and do the deletions where we are agreed. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I left a comment over at Commons. Will that suffice? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article - please could you explain the tag you added on the talk page of the article rather than on my talk page - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You use the phrase that it is the only coal power plant which is economically competitive with renewable energy. But the underlying source of the BBC article is a study by a group which is anti-fossil fuels. In order to use that statement, you should cite several studies, and from groups which don't have a political motivation behind them. It'd be like if you quoted a study by the National Coal Institute saying that coal power was cleaner than solar energy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. You reverted my change in

) 16:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

That's like saying the off-off Broadway awards are right after the Tony's and the Obies. Except that I would argue that only the Eisner awards are truly of the caliber necessary to pass as an auto-notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, English is not my primary language, but I'm sure I asked politely, so I think I deserve a polite answer. Or at least an objective explanation of why it's not relevant and not a meaningless comparison. Please, again with all due respect, where in Wikipedia's rules it defines that it is not relevant to the point of not meeting

WP:ANYBIO. Thanks. Lucio Luiz (talk

) 18:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

By consensus. Usually only the top national awards (whether in the US or other countries) are considered to be notable enough. There are exceptions to that, but I assure you that the Ringo Awards are not one of them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the answer. I didn’t know about this consensus because each Wikipedia has some differences and now it’s clear (that’s the reason I had ask). I’ll pay more attention to this in my next collaborations here. Thanks. Lucio Luiz (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries. And it's great that you edit on WP. I "speak" poorly two other languages, but have never edited on those wikis. Thanks for your efforts. Can you find any other in-depth sourcing on

uru-chan? When I looked I only found sourcing which I think would make a better case for the notability of UnOrdinary, which currently is a redirect to the author. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

21:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll check again the sources and, if it's the case, I'll write about UnOrdinary, with some info about the author, and change the redirect. Probably it's really the better way. Lucio Luiz (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Cool. When you finish, if you'd like me to take a look at it, let me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you managed to put an end to my activity on wikipedia. Tell me how I can delete everything I wrote here without leaving any trace of my passing here. There are other sites besides Wikipedia.Florin (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Because you don't want to go to the trouble of adding sources. Hmmm. And we've had like 2 interactions in 4 years. Wow. Good luck to you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. The main purpose of this article was to record the winners, finalists and final scores for each year that this competition has been played since inception 100+ years ago. It was at one time the second most important club competition in the county. As it is a local not a national competition, it will be impossible to find online sources pre-Internet area. For the years 2000 onwards, I have included the appropriate online sources and links. As there are no available online sources before then, I have referenced John Mulligan's The GAA in Louth: An Historical Record (1984) and his follow-up, The GAA in Louth - An Historical Record Updated (2000) in the article. The winners, runners-up and final scores included in the article pre-Internet era were sourced from these very informative books. If anyone interested in Louth GAA wants to obtain information on the history of this competition over the last 100 years, they would have to find a copy of the books (probably quite difficult to purchase) for their own use or borrow from the county Louth library. This is the challenge anyone who wants to create a comprehensive online local Gaelic Athletic Association history resource faces. The above is also the approach I adopted for the other two championship pages I created Louth Intermediate Football Championship and Louth Minor Football Championship User talk:Moresthepity - Wikipedia Moresthepity (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for reaching out. I meant to adjust the message (which is my standard message in these instances). Simply referencing an entire book is not a valid reference, you need all the information like you have in your other references. Now, since that information is most likely on different pages, you can create a single ref, and say in it pages=1, 14, 21, 30), so that anyone who wants to look up the information doesn't have to search the whole book. You should do that on all 3 pages. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to review my article! There are a couple points in the the comment you left me that I wanted to follow up on. First – yes, you are quite right, I do have a personal relationship to the subject of this article. As a comparatively new user, this is my first article and I neglected to put that on my talk page. I'll absolutely include it there when the article returns to the mainspace. I'm currently working on another article about something (it's a boat... yes, a boat) that I have a tangential personal relationship to as well. I'll be sure to include that COI disclosure when I'm done with it. For my first articles, I figured it would be easier to write about something I have a base level of personal knowledge about to help guide my writing. But I believe the subject of the current article is objectively notable, and I tried to be really thorough with the sourcing. This is another question I had for you – you mentioned that "Information that can't be referenced should be removed". Was there something in particular that you were referring to? Because I feel the article is pretty thoroughly sourced, more so than a lot of articles that I've been practicing copyediting on... So I'd like to be able to rectify anything specific that you had in mind. And then lastly, sorry about moving the page independently – I was under the impression that was valid per WP:Moving a page. One thing I've been struggling with is how information on the same topic is sometimes spread across several different WP pages. Anyway, please let me know about the reference issue specifically, and then I'll submit for review again. Thanks for your time! Genly Ai (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so there are two things to go over, first is the referencing. You have a ton of references, so many reviewers will pass up on taking a look at your article and go on to easier ones to assess. Not fair, I know, but that's the way it is when you're dealing with volunteers. Then there are different types of references. One main type is those which can be used to verify something. These can be primary sources, databases, simple mentions, etc. None of those, however, go towards notability. For notability, you need in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from

WP:VERIFY

, although the use of non-reliable sources is problematic.

Second, your relationship with the subject. There are two types,

WP:UPE (paid editing) and [[WP:COI) (conflict of interest). You should look at those two links and follow the instructions of whichever one fits your circumstances. If you follow those instructions, and go through the AfC process, then when the article gets moved to mainspace, that tag will be removed. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

19:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for explaining that in detail, that was extremely helpful. I revisited the sources to make it clear from the beginning that article references reliable secondary sources, and I added a COI disclaimer to my user page. I've just submitted the article for consideration, hopefully it passes muster this time. Thanks again for your clear guidance. Genly Ai (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. You mentioned in the page FC Twente in European football that it needs more citations. But every single game has the citation link in it from uefa.com in the "result" section of the template. Am I missing something here? Regards... Magawla61 (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)mgwl Magawla61 talk

Yes, it is very well sourced, yet it still needs a couple. The top scorers and competition by country sections are both unsourced. But there wasn't a big enough issue to do anything other than tag it, so that can quickly remedied. Hope this helps, and keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Onel5969,

While I greatly appreciate all of the work that you do here, over the past two weeks, you have draftified this article THREE times! That's way too much. Draftify an article once if it is appropriate, if it is moved back to main space or recreated then either work on improving the article or seek a form of deletion if you feel the article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I've never seen you do this three times so you might not have remembered that you have already moved the article but please do not get into a move war over a bad article. Thank you for all of your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, when you're right, you're right. I guess I was simply aggravated at their lack of respect and in-your-face COI editing. Should have reported them at COIN, which I have now done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For reviewing 97,296 articles. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 12:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

	:D
	Hey, thank you for reviewing my article Sindhi Australians, happy contributings in advance! Starkex, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome, Starkex - keep up the good work.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969, thank you for your help back then. I don't wanna sound childish but David Gerard's edits are just a pain now. While I thought they'd be more matured with respect to their years of adminship on Wikipedia, it doesn't likely seems so.

I'm not sure if you know me well, but you have reviewed ALOT of my articles; prior to me getting the NPP role. Now we have David here who is persisting that I have COI with the subject (Gajesh Naik). They have reverted twice today as of IST timings. Here's the latest revision [4]. While I've kept my cool and have stated multiple times on the AFD related with the article and my talk page that I'm not engaged in any COI yet they keep tagging the article.

I was wondering if I should take this to ANI? because I don't think any better has come from our talk page discussion. Lemme know what you think, cheers! ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 18:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I think you need to take a breath. WP, as you know through your involvement with NPP, is very concerned about UPE/COI editing. And I understand his comment left on your talk page. I personally do not think you are UPE/COI, but I'm also not the strongest one at spotting those types of editors, it has to be blatantly obvious. And since WP has amped up the restrictions in this topic field, I would recommend caution. They queried you regarding COI, you've responded. It should be dropped now. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Do you think I should remove the COI tag? Because I don't want unnecessary attention towards the article, I mean that's what Wiki policies guides us through. David Gerard is simply adamant about their actions, a recent activity on their talk page too shows how sometimes their actions aren't constructive too. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 19:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I support that "vs" replace "vs." and "v" in boxing match titles.

However, to get

on this issue, I've opened an RfC on the issue.

Please comment and offer your opinions on it.

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#rfc 029C646

Thanks, --Tbf69 userpage • talkpage 19:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Now that I have added one more source, please reconsider the notability tag that you placed there earlier. I would appreciate having it lifted for

) 04:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi the issue is still there. You need in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources to show notability. Usually 3 will do it (but that's not a hard and fast number). And the coverage needs to be beyond routine sports coverage. Right now, only the article from The Tennesseean meets those criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

You have reviewed this Parul Mishra Wiki page before and we have already discussed on this. I again strongly object your action on putting his to draftspace. All the reference provides are reliable, independent justifying the notability of the source.

I request you to go through the reference again and move back the article from draftspace to mainspace.

Further request you not to touch this wiki page. User:Risu43( talk) 13:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is back. New article in mainspace, same primary editor as the last article you moved to draftspace.... UtherSRG (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I can't see the version which was deleted, this one looks like it is sourced properly however. Another NPPer has already marked it reviewed. I had draftified the other due to a lack of sourcing, so they seem to have calmed down and corrected the issue. Thanks for the heads up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Mangoe (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

hi Could you make this Article Draft I tried it but I don't know how And please don't make it a redirect Because I want to improve it Gerçois (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. Good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed that you moved my page to a draft. If you look at the references, you see that the league,

) 09:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

What is required to meet notability is not simply to show existence. It's to show there is in-depth coverage from multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. The first 3 sources are press releases, which are not independent, and the fourth is not really about the team. Hope this helps. Are there any articles that talk about the team in the in the LA Times or LA Daily News, or any of the newspapers in California? ESPN.com? That's where the notability would be shown. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I hope you are doing well.

After a long time, today I am back to my user account. I figured out that you have decided to redirect Oubeid Allah Hlal page to his comedian group page Les inqualifiables. I believe there is enough in-depth press coverage from independant and reliable local sources to show independant notability. I think that the person is even more known as a doctor-influencer than a comedian & part of "Les inqualifiables". This is can be confirmed by checking their social media accounts or Oubeid's TV/Radio appearances where he is invited to talk as an influencer in medecine and health care field. However, the most important criteria is press sources talking about him (as a an influencer). Here are a few examples:

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2022/08/350739/moroccan-doctor-obeid-allah-hlal-uses-humor-in-medical-education

https://fr.hespress.com/280618-interview-oubeid-allah-hlal-un-medecin-pas-comme-les-autres.html

http://www.babmagazine.ma/oubeid-allah-hlal-lart-pour-informer-et-lhumour-pour-guerir

https://www.h24info.ma/culture/oubeid-allah-hlal-mon-reve-devenir-le-premier-cardiologue-humoriste/

https://nabd.com/s/110953363-891ae3/%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%B9-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%87%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B7%D8%A8-%D9%88%D8%B5%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%89-%D8%B7%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A8-%D9%83%D9%88%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A..-%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%83%D9%86%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%8A%D8%B4%D9%82-%D8%B7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9

please tell me what do you think?

Cordially, Art&football (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. First, sorry for the delay in responding. I missed this. Regarding the above sources, please remember that interviews, as primary sources, cannot be used to indicate notability. That being said, the first two are from what are non-reliable sources. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you. However, there are others sources from well-known local medias and that are not interviews. They are biography/portrait articles that talk independently about the person. Art&football (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I've added quite a few new references. Some of them are pretty extensive and all of them cover all the content of the article. What else needs to be done? --Silverije 23:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

If you feel that it meets

WP:GNG, you should click on the submit for review button. I took a brief look at it, and many of the current sources do not appear to be in-depth about the company, or from primary sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I agree that some of sources do not appear to be in-depth about the company, but some of them do, especially the state audit report, which is 100% neutral, reliable and independent. And so are the articles of Croatian technical encyclopedia and Academy of techical sciences, aren't they? --Silverije 00:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, could you please consider to wait before adding orphan templates etc. to new articles. Egeymi (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, the tool doesn't let me know exactly how old the page is, and if there is not an inuse tag on it, I have no way of knowing if the article is being actively worked on. My apologies for the inconvenience. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Best, --Egeymi (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Mangoe (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel, do you have any information on the source "Packman, J. & Packman L. (1966) The Sexton Blake Catalogue"? I looks like a self published work. I asked about the publisher, but got a wall of text with no real information.

Greetings from Los Angeles  // Timothy :: talk  18:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Greetings from a UCLA alum... No, got nothing on that. While sources can be primary, they do have to be reliable. This is a tough one. But as per

WP:PRIMARY, large portions of the article should not rely on a primary reference, regardless of whether or not that source is reliable or not. And in this case, I cannot see how this is a reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

02:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Rita Flynn

Hi @Onel5969:, could you please create a draft for American actress Rita Flynn, who appeared in with James Cagney and Jean Harlow in The Public Enemy (1931) and also has an article but in the Italian Wikipedia 190.140.147.233 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC) 190.140.147.233 (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

created. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 19:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 19:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 19:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 19:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm probably being thick here but what source are you saying has been copvio'd? The reddit thread or https://slife.org/proto-indo-european-mythology/ which says it contains material from WP. Immanuelle says that this article contains content from other WP article, and while there might be a small attribution issue to be sorted out in relation to that, I'm not sure where the copyvio is. Nthep (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I was referring to the Reddit thread, which is from 3 years ago. While I see that the Reddit thread does mention WP, the mention does not seem to be in relation to the text which was copy-pasted into this article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

since the reddit thread has so many link to WP articles in it, it looks likely that it's a copy-paste from here to reddit. Nthep (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the update. Wasn't sure myself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. You made a few couple edits to the BPIFB5P page I authored... thanks for fixing the underscore. But there's a problem with the banner you applied. Yes, I see that it appears to have no other articles linking to it -- the right hand menu shows that status as does the tool provided in the banner -- but there already IS a link to it on an existing, page "Category:Genes_on_human_chromosome_20" which I guess is a reciprocal link and don't know if it counts. But I'm going to manually add another link on two pages for related genes/proteins where it makes sense and would be useful. Plus there are trivial links to the page in an exchange with User:Boghog. So there are plenty of links to justify removing the banner. But I'm puzzled why the existing link isn't showing up. Is this something to be ignored? Lapabc (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

My understanding, and I could be wrong but it makes sense, is that links to/from cat pages don't count, and aren't shown in the linking tool. I looked at a couple of other articles, which I know are linked on cat pages, and those links don't show up either. Hope that makes sense. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

hi to you, i hoping taht you are feel well, so for the article of Gogogligo, He is a person recognized in my country, Togo and even the President of the Republic decorated him for that, I do not know why we doubt his notability and in addition the article is well accepted on Wikipedia in French Videke (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Different Wikis have different standards of notability, as well as other policies. On English WP, you need in-depth coverage from several sources (usually, to be safe, 3), and the sources need to be reliable, independent, and secondary. Right now, of the 4 refs, 2 lead to porn links, one is a dead link, and the other, from Made-In-Togo, is not reliable. Hope this helps, and you really should remove those porn links (#'s 2 and 4) right away. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emmanuel Mission, Arizona, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Mission, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Troweek, Arizona, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troweek, Arizona until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

) 16:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Rachida El Azzouzi

Hello Onel5969,

I see you have put the article on the journalist Rachida El Azzouzi to the draft section, as I did not see any comments that specified what could have been done different, I have changed some parts, but I would really appreciate it, if you could give some more notes on how to change the original article.

Have a nice day!

With Regards,

Fred Fredellis01 (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, I left very specific comments on your talk page. Please read

WP:COI, and follow the instructions there. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Nadir Dias de Figueiredo

Hello! Can you explain why the industrialist Nadir Dias de Figueiredo is not a relevant person for Wikipedia? Thank you! Gondolabúrguer (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Not saying anything about their relevancy. What I am saying is that currently, the article does not have enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources that are about him specifically, not his companies, to show that he meets WP's notability criteria. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Did you have time to review my request? I think all criteria is here to undo the redirection.

Thanks Art&football (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

See above. Sorry about the delay. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Do you think that acting in the popular series Lo Que Callan Las Mujeres / programa "Lo que Callamos las Mujeres" - is enough for her to have notoriety? (Angélica Magaña)? Thanks.HistoricReminder (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. When I put the notability tag on an article, I firmly believe the first line of the tag, "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies". If I truly felt they didn't meet notability criteria, I would prod or send to AfD. So, to answer your question, a single significant role does not meet either

WP:NACTOR. When I review actor bios, I always look at the films/TV shows they have been in, and try to ascertain if they pass NACTOR, even if they don't pass GNG. The only other role of any significance, is her part in Bellezas Indomables, but I don't think that it's significant enough to get them over the barrier of NACTOR. Therefore, they'll need to pass GNG. Which means that they need at least one more, and preferably two, in-depth articles about them. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

17:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Britt Weerman

Hi, could you be so kind and review article titled Britt Weerman (a Dutch high jumper). It is the Dutch record holder and silver medallist of the World Under-20 Championships so she is notable - just I did not add enough sources initially (it is an athletic stub however) - there is a problem with sources for athletes from "smaller", non-English speaking countries. However I found notable Dutch references (secondary notable per wiki) and added them. Article is waiting several days now so if you could review it soon I would be grateful. Regards, Track1News (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I've been kind of backed-up, but it looks like another reviewer has already taken a look at it. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for reviewing Desperate Measures (2013 Australian TV series). I realise that it is light on third-party mentions, but that is partly the nature of the beast. It is an important historical source, and the individual episodes are mentioned all over the place. It's just not the type of thing that turns up in news sources or popular press. It has quite a number of incoming links, plus there are other TV series of the same name that most likely need articles one day (see Desperate Measures). I have now added to it, having discovered that there were actually three series, and found some academic sources. I hope that this will be enough to pass the notability test. I would not like to see my work on this (and related articles, with incoming links) wasted, and it can be expanded with series 2 & 3. Series such as this (like First Australians) often get repeat showings, and the fact that it is currently available on SBS streaming service is also a sign of its notability. Would you please have another look at it? Thanks. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, been pretty busy, so I haven't responded, but did want to let you know that I did take that look, removed the notability tag and marked it reviewed. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 13:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @

) 21:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969 I've draftified it for now to allow the editor to establish notability so as not to rush with deletion, although the sources appear scarce. I also noticed the same editor having previously attempted to make a separate page for the company's founder but without success due to lack of notability. Let me know what you think about Tehran Summer Code in light of this. Thanks so much! Ppt91 (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been swamped with RL stuff, and have just focused on reviewing articles when I have time to spend on WP. Kind of let the talk page responses slide. I think the Summer Code article barely passes notability, and I'm still not sure it does. I would be much happier if there were more reliable sources talking about it. Please feel free to mark it unreviewed. I definitely agree with your assessment of the research group article. The fact that this same editor appears to be a SPA, now brings me to question whether or not these two (and the founder article) are all UPE edits. Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969 No worries, I figured you were busy. I am glad to hear that you agree and I've unreviewed the conference article. I guess I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt (also because they used terms like "research" and "scientific" despite my suspicion that it's just a regular business), but it's not looking great and UPE indications are quite strong already.

Unless I missed something, so far we have:

WP:REFCLUTTER

to make them seem notable. The submission descriptions sound odd too: "I published this article by reading the sources," "I wrote the article by reading independent sources and created it with the correct name," and "I completed the article using standard templates and reliable and official sources (universities, official news agencies, newspapers and news bases" among others.

Do you think it's sufficient for reporting on ANI? I would say so, but I'll defer to you given your experience with UPE in such cases is likely much more extensive. Of course, I will be happy to voice support for any report we decide to go with. Thanks again. Ppt91 (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure ANI is the right venue, but I do think this is

WP:COIN. So maybe ANI is the only venue. While I do not mind making the report at ANI, you've done all the heavy lifting research-wise, so I don't want to step on your toes. If I create the report, I'll simply be almost cut and pasting your above paragraph. Regardless, one of us should make the report. Let me know what you decide. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969 I'll submit it. Will mention you in the report so that you can support as second NPP if need be. Thanks for helping me sort this out. I know you're already working overtime! Ppt91 (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Good morning. In this edit you adjusted the AfD template. Is that an issue that needs addressing in Twinkle, or did I mangle something? Thanks! Star Mississippi 14:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

No, you didn't mangle anything. When using AWB, it looks for the abbreviated forms in templates and expands them (like cn=citation needed, etc.). Normally, if that is the only change on a page at afd, I skip it, but there were other format issues which got cleaned up in that edit. And thanks for all the effort you put in on the project, btw. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You as well! You do so much maintenance work. Thanks for explaining this one. I love words-syntax and markup, not so fluent. Have a great one. Star Mississippi 14:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! @Onel5969 I saw you recently add the multiple issues tag on an article I wrote, I just did some changes to it.. could you please consider removing the tag now. Thank you! Defunkedmaster (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay in responding. Which article are you talking about? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi thank you for replying, no need to remove the tags on Draft:B Major (Bjorn Martin) this article was moved to draft for the meantime, i fixed the multiple issues on the page and removed the tag myself. but the main space page has been protected from creation by admin.. the article I started with Draft:B Major (Bjorn Martin) has a long history of SockPuppets who tried creating the article way too soon.. we are currently having a discussion/debate about this, so feel free to join if you'd like. PHL Defunkedmaster (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Just an FYI, not even an hour after you had moved it to draftspace, Nostalgia Zone moved the article back into mainspace... Magitroopa (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see if they re-add the unsourced info again. If so, I'm afraid the only choice I have is ANI. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

What’s ANI? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, how is it going? I've seen you completely deleted an article I wrote without an actual discussion. I believe you should repristinate the page, sources were there and had full coverage. If you thought more were needed, either add those yourself or add a tag calling for further action. Your approach is not very collaborative neither constructive. Honestly, if I slowed down contributing to this language version of the project, much of the fault resides in your behavior. I'm sorry to write you this, but this is how I feel. I hope you can understand and that compromises can found. Thank you, Plumbago Capensis (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Compromise is not the issue. WP policy is the issue. Simply provide the sourcing necessary to show notability, and everything will be hunky dory. The time you spent writing this, you could have found and added two sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel. Thanks for reviewing chiliz. Kindly look through it again. I've added categories and linked it to few articles. Still working to improve it though. Thanks Ghostfishing (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I actually hadn't reviewed it yet. It was on my list of new articles to review tomorrow. I merely made a couple of minor corrections to it. But I just took a look at it and have now marked it reviewed. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969. I have seen that you have reverted my AfC action. I have visited all the references to verify the article's claims. Further, I have checked coverages about the article person. As I respect you as a good editor, there should be reasons to revert mine. I would be happy to get assistance from you about my mistake on that draft. Please reply. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There's two reasons. The first, and foremost, is that this is written by a COI editor. Until that is dealt with, it should never be moved into mainspace. But that's not your fault, you might not have known that. Second, is, he just does not appear that notable. Even if

WP:NSOLDIER was still valid, he would not have met that threshold either. Hope this makes sense. And thanks for helping out over at AfC, they definitely need it. Reviewed several other articles you approved, and found no issue with those. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I wasn't not aware about COI editor. Can we move it for CSD? Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

While COI and PE editors are frowned upon, they are not prohibited. And none should ever edit wiki mainspace directly. UPE editors will get blocked. I think (and this is merely a guess on my part), that this might be some relative of this soldier, who is greatly admired among his family, and wanted to get his story out there. When I sent it to draft, I explained the COI to them, so let's see how they respond. Bottom line is, unless they come up with some in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources, which right now, the only one is the Post-Gazette story, it does not pass GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for your kind explanation which enlightened me about COI and UPE. I just checked the sources thoroughly, but skipped the COI part. I shall be more cautious as of now about the article creator and the article submitter. Thanks again. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

If you have any questions about COI/UPE, don't hesitate to ask other experienced editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have rejected it now. Can you please have a look for my rejection cause and suggest me? Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine. And btw, you didn't "reject" it (nor should you have), you "declined" it. There is a difference, for when an article gets rejected at AfC, there is little chance it will ever get published in mainspace, while when a draft is declined, there is a chance, often a good chance, that it will get improved enough to warrant a move to mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding. I have declined after taking your guidance as I have caught you as a reputed editor searching in Wikipedia. I guess I have lots to learn from you. I shall connect you on regular manner if you don't mind. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I never mind answering questions. And there's no reason to apologize, I wasn't criticizing, merely explaining. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It was a wonderful conversation. Thank you for everything. It was really great assistance. Thanking you again. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jan Spousta (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel. Thanks for reviewing chiliz. Apologise for removing the tag. I'm new here and learning. Kindly look through the article again. I've added categories and linked it to few articles. Regards.

Thanks Ghostfishing (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

See above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you [[User talk:Onel5969| — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostfishing (talk • contribs) 17:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Onel5969. Thank you for your input.

You have tagged Innocent Gangaidzo as, may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics

However according to Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). Innocent Gangaidzo is notable because "6 The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." He is President of ECSACOP which is the highest academic administrative post for a major medical organization covering covering 7 countries.

You also tagged it as relies excessively on references to primary sources

However according to Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher." The sources used are are largely independent, accurate, high quality, from reputable organizations, etc.

Please may you kindly remove the tags you placed?

Ear-phone (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I replied on the article's talk page, where you left the same message. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Why did you redirect my article to the Nickelodeon Kids’ Choice Awards page? I know it doesn’t have any sources but, come on other articles based on the KCA have minimal sources so why are you going after me? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you going to respond because you redirected it again, I personally don’t get it mainly because other KCA articles have minimal sources. The thing is that Favorite Video Game is a unique category and many other editors can agree with me that this needs its own page. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if you feel this subject "needs" it's own page. What matters is WP policy. Please follow it and provide the sourcing necessary to show that this passes

WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

…I think you should realize that other KCA articles like Favorite Cartoon have minimal sources. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument; on the contrary, it indicates that those other articles need to be improved or BLAR'd. - UtherSRG (talk)

13:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I just realized that onel5969 are one of the people who were messing around with the 1949-50 and 1950-51 Late Night schedule articles and stating the exact same nonsense. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought that I already chatted with you. On a side note you are constantly redirecting pages even though they make sense and you think it’s because there’s minimal sources but let me tell you here’s the sources I used…

THE STINKING KCA PAGES THEMSELVES!

I’m far from disrupting Wikipedia in this case where there’s no other websites that have a page talking about KCA’s Favorite Video Game. If you have a good reason why this article should barely exist then tell me.

Nostalgia Zone (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I've explained it to you, as have other editors, numerous times. If you do it again, you'll be reported at ANI. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Why? Like honestly why apart from NO TURE SOURCES and WP Policy!!! The topic is not even on any website, not any lists, no nothing. Give me a true reason apart from overdone nonsense! Nostalgia Zone (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It's been explained. Now, unless you have something constructive to discuss, this discussion is over. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

And for the last time what does ANI stand for and what is it? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANI, which you would think would be easy for anyone to figure out. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

02:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks for answering that question. Seriously though, Do you have an excuse for why this simple article should be redirected apart from nonsense excuses? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Seriously though, it's been explained to you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I personally think that we should finally resolve this in peace so then we can both move on. Are you okay with that? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Can we please just get this thing resolved? Are you going to respond? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing to resolve. Everything's been explained to you, numerous times. And there is no need to keep leaving messages if you don't get an immediate response. That's kind of rude. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I can’t find any more sources, and WP policy is mostly nonsense. I will not be accepting my page as nothing more but a redirect so if you are not allowing me to keep this page alive then THANKS A LOT! 😑 Nostalgia Zone (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You can have asked me or some other editor who has access to Newspapers.com or some other paid service. [6] (an example). Many mentions in newspapers Timur9008 (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for that I’m going to bring back the article as long as Onel5969 is okay with it on the condition that I will improve the article alongside other people. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that if you want to develop the article, you should do it in draftspace, then, once properly sourced, move it to mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that there was already a draft before. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You do realize that right? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969: thank you very much for all your previous work reviewing the articles I have created. Following the indications I have incorporated the template "Connected Contributor" to my discussion page but I can't manage to put more information because the template doesn't open, I have tried to put it also in the user page and the program doesn't allow it. Some articles have been remunerated, others have not.  In some cases I have been asked for help to solve problems. I would like to place this information, but as I say, I can't get the template to open. If you can tell me how to do it, I would appreciate it. Miskito89 (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure what the issue is, just went and had a look at it. You might want to post your question at the talkpage of

WP:TEAHOUSE) Onel5969 ^{TT me}

19:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi Onel5969. I am just here to take an opinion/advise regarding my AfC review done till the moment. I have accepted some per guidance and declined most per notability issue. Kindly advise me if I have done anything wrong. Would love to hear from you. :) Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Will be happy to do so, as long as you remember what I say will just be one man's opinion. Won't be able to get to it for a few days though. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind. I am glad to get assistance by you as I see you are very kind of

WP:CIVIL editor. We might do mistake, but I am fond of taking advice from experienced editors here. Twinkle1990 (talk

) 12:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't make edits that demand work of others

Don't mean to be rude, but do you mind not making edits like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conjugated_oligoelectrolytes&oldid=1140528434

I just started the article. I'm working on it. It isn't helpful to say it's orphaned and needs categories. I know I know it needs categories. Those boxes just makes the article look bad and make more work for me to go and delete them. Rather than saying this need categories, why don't you add some? It takes just as long. Miserlou (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Then please don't make work for others and add an inuse tag so other users will know you're working on it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You made the work for yourself! It's a brand new page with no links, so you had to go looking for it, and rather than trying to be helpful, you just trashed it with ugly boxes! When did that become good behavior? The boxes themselves don't say "go around putting more boxes", they say go and add some categories! Sheesh. Miserlou (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Sheesh! Do the work you're supposed to and stop wasting time like this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Miserlou: If you aren't ready for other people to actively tag the article because it's not ready, then don't create the article in main article space. Start in in your sandbox or in draft space, and then move it into article space when it is ready. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank You for your help St. Therese Church, Abu Dhabi Apostolicus (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Onel5969. As mentioned before, I have requested a third opinion Talk:Innocent_Gangaidzo#Notability. Ear-phone (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for cleaning up this new article about Charles A. Birnbaum - I am grateful for your help on many of my articles - you have always made them better and I wanted you to know that I notice! This barnstar is for you! Minard38 (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness in reviewing this article despite my general grumpiness about BLAR at ANI. I hope nothing I've said there has reflected badly on you; I don't think the job of new page reviewers or AfC people is easy. I'm keen that Wikipedia's plethora of policies and addiction to acronyms shouldn't intimidate new editors, I get frustrated about the acceptance procedure, and I wish AfD were more friendly and collegial; but on the other hand, if there weren't acceptance procedures, and "pesky" notability requirements, WP would be full of all sorts of unsourced trash. So please keep up the good work and know that you are appreciated. Elemimele (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries. When I am doing NPP, I rarely notice who created the article. That way, it's just reviewed based on the merits of the article. It was a nice piece you put together. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi - I removed the redirection to Off The Kerb Productions as the companies are independent of each other - as evidenced by the Companies House link. Whilst both companies were set up by Addison Cresswell, they have always been separate entities. Could you let me know what further proof would suffice for this? Thanks. Tequester (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

To show notability, you need several references which go in-depth about the company, and are from reliable, secondary, independent sources. I usually tell editors that 3 is a good number to prevent folks from questioning notability. I hope this helps. If you would like to work on the article, I could move it to draft for you. Let me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you marked Sarah Forbes (cricketer) as "reviewed" with no notes. Just wanted to drop a quick reminder that

15:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out, will mark it for notability, and check it again in a week for improvements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. You've taken care of it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

You moved the Yussuf A Aleem article to the Draft domain, though a talk page for it remains in the main space. Can you initiate its deletion? Thanks —ADavidB 22:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Another editor just 'fast deleted' it. —ADavidB 22:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

hi there the correct link is Saudis not Saudi Arabia, will you correct your mass edits, thanks, Egeymi (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you redirected my article and I would like to know the rationale behind that. Thank you in advance. Shamsu Rabiu Galadunchi (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The rationale was in the edit summary: "not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969

Some reliable secondary sources added to the article. The article is translated from the Persian Wikipedia and most of the sources are in Persian but, I found sources from Washington Post as well.

Cheers, Eh.eb 16:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I reject COI because

• I am Not Creator of this Article.

AFD Accepted
Keep : Article follows BLP Policy and Notable. meet WP:GNG (some sources: 1 2 and 3). Endrabcwizart (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Arran Gaelic, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Investigating, but I strongly suspect this content was copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969:

Thank you for attending to the Order of Merit of the Republic of Cyprus article, which you have tagged as "may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline". Why, efharisto?

Primm1234 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Because there are zero in-depth references from independent, reliable, secondary sources. To be safe, there should be at least 3. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969: "To be safe"..! What could possibly be more reliable than a reference from the President of Cyprus's official website? I've now added two more, but unless one is au fait with Greek, unsure how useful such references will be for English users.

editors

should use "common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Surely it is beyond doubt for a national honour of any sovereign state to have its own Wikipedia entry?

Primm1234 (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Please read the whole sentence, reliable is only one of 3 parameters. Just because something exists does not make it notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

CC @Ser Amantio di Nicolao:

Hey I am sorry I didn't mean to get you mad I send 2 days making the 2023 Michigan State baseball page. Why can't it stay I work so had on it if you can explain I would appreciate it I am sorry if I got you mad at me. Kevinthomas20 (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Not mad, just informing you of WP policies. Uncited information, once removed, needs to have a citation to pass VERIFY. In addition, to show notability, there must be multiple in-depth references from independent, reliable, secondary sources to show that that subject pass

WP:NSEASONS would also apply. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

01:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion

, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the

.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Would you check these two articles:

) 12:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, another editor has requested histmerge on both, so that should solve the issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay and thanks. — 9️⃣8️⃣🐯♒️•(🆃🅰🅻🅺) 05:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello my friend, I hope you are doing well. You delete the articles that I create without considering them. I have not seen such a rule in the Wikipedia rules. I try to create articles by studying sources and standards. I am not able to create a complete article, of course. And Wikipedia also evolves with the cooperation of all users. I extract the minimum resources needed for an article and mention in the article that other users help to complete the articles. Thank you for giving the articles a deadline and not deleting them immediately. This work of yours makes me and other Wikipedia users hope to write in this encyclopedia. And even with the passage of time, if there are any problems, they will be fixed. Thank you. Garshaasp 14:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

You need to study guidelines and policies more. It would most likely help you if you went through the AfC process when creating articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I saw that you opened an investigation regarding to editors who write about Uzbekistan. I want to inform you that I also created an investigation with the same subject. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whybob19 and I saw that first four accounts of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whybob19 and third and forth account of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whybob19 were created in the same day with the interval of 1-2-3 hours.

I want that you should merge your investigation with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whybob19 because you opened it at 01:06, 26 February 2023 but I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whybob19 before you at 15:31, 25 February 2023. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. The excellent folks over at SPI will do that. Frankly, I wouldn't know how. But you are correct, they should be brought together. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I think (not 100% sure) that there will be more accounts who create Uzbekistan related articles. I think we should have to see the list of articles which were created today, yesterday or day before yesterday to find more article creator. Thanks. Happy Editing. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I found one more opened investigation. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hilola Jurakulova ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I've run into your helpful edits on a wide range of pages across many projects, all of them being extraordinary and making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia! Scott the Reporter (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I actually never said thank you for this. So... thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Sexton Blake)  // Timothy :: talk  15:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Responded there, was thinking about filing a report myself, but you beat me to it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your edit here. Methinks the long-ago blocked creator of that redirect, and the editor now making the revert, are one and the same. Editor Interaction Analyser shows multiple edits to the same obscure articles, including this and this. Should I refer it to SPI? Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Very well could be. However, usually there aren't long gaps of time between when 2 socks edit the same page. The user interaction shows quite a few matches, but almost all of them are with at least a year between the two accounts touching the article. Personally, I think, with the number of edits each of these accounts has, that there would be more overlap, particularly in the subject areas they both espouse to be interested in. It won't hurt to bring it up at SPI, however. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I may do that. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thanks that you reviewed one of page i created. If you do the same with Maurya (surname) and Kushwaha (surname), it will be a great help. Thanks again.Admantine123 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy, so I didn't get to look at them until know, and both have already been reviewed by other patrolers. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969, Is it okay if I bring back the Kids Choice Award for Favorite Video Game page on the condition that me and other people will improve the article with more sources? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

See my answer above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Mangoe (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, dear colleague! Sorry for my terrible English. You wrote that this article may be deleted, because its not notable. I'll add it notable sources. Umarxon III (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC).

I’ve adjusted the page Leo DaSilva. Review positively.

PS we’re on the streets protesting and defending democracy because they are about to rig in a 90 year old dinosaur as president, so my attention is divided from Wikipedia. Amaekuma (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine. I've marked it reviewed. Stay safe. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Onel5969 I have reviewed David Gonzalez's draft in detail, and I have made quite a few changes to make it have an encyclopedic style and a neutral point of view. I have also found more references. I think that together we can make a better Wikipedia. And really, the article needed an improvement, thanks for sending it to the Draft space. If you can review it, that would be great. Miskito89 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I focus mainly on NPP, not AfC, and have been pretty busy, so I'll try to give it a good look-see later tomorrow. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

U have redirected my article

) 17:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hate to tell you but the The Times of India is not considered a reliable source when dealing with entertainment articles. Right now, it doesn't come close to passing

WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

17:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Disagreeing with reply

U said well known Times of India is not a reliable source for my article

) 17:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Also added secondary reliable sources

I have added available secondary sources for my article

Deeparadhana

. They may be enough and removed notability.

Nomination of Paul A. Singh for deletion

Hello Onel5969, thanks for getting in touch regarding the page Paul A. Singh. I think Mr Singh is worthy of a page on Wiki, as he is arguably one of the first creators of the commercial dashcam. He is also a notable road safety campaigner in the UK with several mentions in mainstream UK media. Since you marked the page for deletion I have added several other credible news sources regarding Singh's work in road safety over the years, and also the page is no longer an orphan now, as it links to the page for former police Chief Constable Keith Hellawell who worked with Singh for many years in the area of road safety. If you feel the page still falls short of the necessary number and quality of sources I would very much appreciate any pointers or assistance you can give to get this page to meet the necessary Notability Guidelines. Sean Matthew Obrien (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

He very well might be. I think Suriname0's response on the article talk page is the best response someone could give. If you would like, I can move it into draft space so you can work on it. Just let me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi again. Please review Karm Yuddh (Indian TV series) though I am autopatroller, I don't want to misuse of my user rights. Hence, I request you to review. Please... Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. You were given the rite for a reason. But never hurts if you want a second opinion. The article looks fine to me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)