User talk:Onel5969/Archive 112

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 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

Archive 112: March 2023

Thanks for your tag ... I have done the necessary changes.Manjulaperera (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Black Christmas (Disambiguation) (disambiguation) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 1 § Black Christmas (Disambiguation) (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969! There are many articles in

) 17:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, will do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Can you take a look at this for me? That sounds like a lot of promo content. ABHammad (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. And they keep re-adding it. Suspect UPE editing, I've sent it to draft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for reviewing my speedway articles, it is very much appreciated. Pyeongchang (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Where is the Star Awards 2023 main article? Star Awards had been an annual ceremony in Singapore and no one simply moved or delete the page before just because of notability. Please redo the page until it gets it's notability. Thanks (Unknown152438 (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)) Star Awards is a notable event in Singapore, so the wikipedia page should be notable as well. (Unknown152438 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC))

Hello, may I ask why you revrted my change on the Cyprus military bases to a misleading redirect? For starters, Akrotiri and Dhekelia are villages theyre not bases. Secondly, saying "Cyprus military bases" and redirecting automatically "British bases in Cyprus", is misleading, the British bases located within both Akrotiri village and Dhekelia, are not the only bases on the island of Cyprus, there are Cypriot National Guard bases as well thus the re-direct makes no logical sense. Either keep my changes or move the page to "British Military Bases in Cyprus". SirBlueWhite (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Because it is totally unsourced. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That is not an argument its directing back to wikipedia pages and the redirect also isnt sourced so that makes no logical sense, but ok, ill go source. SirBlueWhite (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Redirects are not articles, so they generally don't require sources. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That's why I redirected the unsourced article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

And as I said, the redirect makes no sense as you are calling 2 Villages/Towns, military bases (Which they are not). Plus, the bases that its referring to in Akrotiri and Dhekelia arent the only 2 bases on the island of Cyprus hence why I had said, either move the article or keep the edits because otherwise it makes no sense. If you want to move the article to "British Military bases in Cyprus" or something to that effect, fine, keep the redirect. SirBlueWhite (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said, uncited articles are not acceptable... why are you belaboring the point? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It was redirecting to other wikipedia articles and beyond all that the original redirect is still wrong, youre still missing the point. SirBlueWhite (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No sir, you are. Now please stop. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean, redirects dont need sources and I dont have a geography issue so I doubt im the one mising the point. This might help you. SirBlueWhite (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. The article had no sources, hence the redirect. No one is saying redirects need sources. Articles need sources. Now, stop posting on my talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok im throwing oranges at the wall here so whatever you say. SirBlueWhite (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. SirBlueWhite (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, as an active New Page Patroller, I wanted to make sure you were aware of an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation project to improve the PageTriage extension. We recently published results of user interviews, and have some findings that we would value patrollers' opinions on. If you haven't yet, please consider adding the project page to your watchlist to stay up to date with our progress! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to also thank you for taking the time to meet with us! We'd value your input on whether we've captured everything important or if there's anything still missing. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Anytime. Excellent summary I just finished reading. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Please explain why you have twice tagged this page for "notability". The Ponsonby brothers were the first of the Ponsonby family in Ireland which went on to affect Irish and British politics and society for the next two hundred years, for good and bad, and have entries in dozens of independent sources just like the Crosbies, the Dennys, the Cootes etc. Henry Ponsonby has his own biography in the DIB for goodness' sake. I've done plenty of pages about people who've had far less impact on history.Dm4244 (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Because there is not enough in-depth coverage of this particular Ponsonby. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Onel5969,

I was looking at the nightly draftification list and it seemed like you went completely overboard draftifying articles over the past 24 hours. When I did a count, I found that you draftified 446 articles! This is excessive. Draftifying is ONE TOOL that can be used but it shouldn't be your go-to solution or only response for any article you see that has problems. How about tagging an article or starting a discussion with an editor about what problems keep coming up in their work?

In some cases, it looks like you just went and draftified every single article that a couple of editors had started. It's hard for me to believe that you came across more than 400 articles that warranted being draftified in just one day. Please do not overuse this tool, use your discretion and consider other options that are available to you as an experienced editor. Draftifying can be a solution to some problems that exist with newly created articles but it isn't the only one you should be making use of. Thank you for your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

As hard as it is to believe, that's exactly what happened. When I edit, I select a day a week or so prior to the current date. On Wednesday (3/1) I reviewed the articles created on 2/25. There was an editathon in Uzbekistan on the 23-25 of February. During that event, several editors mass produced stub articles without any valid sources. Most of the articles were made in draft, then moved to mainspace by the editathon organizers (all of which were very inexperienced editors themselves). They were spoken to on their talk pages, and were asked to correct the articles. They did not not. About half the articles had a single ref, which was an invalid link; the other half had the same invalid link with a second ref to a non-reliable source. And it wasn't the only tool I used. Mixed amongst those 400 or so Uzbek articles were over 100 other articles which were reviewed but not draftified. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi

) 13:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of

Agua Fria, Arizona

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agua Fria, 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, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

About the article

) 12:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Until sourcing is provided which shows it is notable, it is just you saying so. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not notable, just that there is nothing to show it is. And having said that, if that person's only claim to fame is winning this award, is the award notable enough to make the person notable? For example, in a different field, winning an Emmy award makes the person notable, but winning a regional Emmy, still a notable award, is not enough on it's own to show the person is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I have expanded the section

Iyanaga Prize in the Japan math society article. I get not every award is prominent enough to make the receiver notable in the eyes of Wikipedia. Some awards do; e.g., Noble prizes. Iyanaga Prize is very selective; it was awarded to only one person per year. Its successor Spring Prize is "one of the most prestigious prizes awarded by the Society to its members."^[1] Like I said, it's not just me saying it's prestigious. Also, as you can see, many of receivers of the prize already have Wikipedia articles and I would argue (and many other would agree, I think) that those without articles should have articles eventually. If there is still a doubt on notability, perhaps a good next step is an AfD. -- Taku (talk

) 08:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

About your recent edit. First for Matsumoto article. Is there any question as to whether he has received Iyanaga Prize? The sources seem adequate to me. If the question is as to whether Iyanaga Prize is prestigious or not, then that question should be addressed in the Japan Math society article, not in the Matsumoto article. —- Taku (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand why the tag has been added, but I'm sure that as the page grows over the next year or two as the tournaments get underway. RLWC qualification pages are generally quite notable and my experience is that is is better to start pages a bit earlier before they are notable so sources can be found and added easier when they become available. Thankyou Mn1548 (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Um, sorry to bring this discussion back from the dead but you said that I should transfer my KCA article to a draft. Only issue is that there was already a draft before that I undid. How should I solve this? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, have been busy a bit. Will take a look shortly and get back to you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to be impatient but are you going to respond? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You're actually being very patient. The last 2 weeks have been incredibly hectic, so my apologies. The past week I've been involved in moving my 93 year-old mother across country to live near me, which is where I'm heading right now once again. But I promise you, when I get back, I'll look at this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Nostalgia Zone, finally took a look. I moved the information from the unsourced article which was turned into a redirect into the existing draft redirect, so you can work on it there. Okay?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bosque, 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/Bosque, 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) 01:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arrowhead Ranch, 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/Arrowhead Ranch, 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) 01:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5659. Since you marked this article as reviewed (although perhaps it was due to Lithopsian's review?), would you mind commenting on the current discussion here please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5659. Just a reminder about this article, if you could take a look sometime please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, fell through the cracks. Have now left a message there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Please don't forget to search for sources on Google books before tagging something for notability. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that's the article creator's responsibility. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not really true. Nearly all the documentation for tagging says: First make sure the tag is necessary, then tag the article. Skyerise (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That is actually correct for NPP reviewers. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You were reported

14:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. And Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello There, I noticed you deleted the article that I created surrounding TBR S02, it did not need to be deleted as the article itself has merit, including a list of all characters within the series, and also contains details of the guest characters too. Production details and Episode Synopsis' will be added soon. MediDude4345 (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gladden, 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/Gladden, 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, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Forepaugh, 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/Forepaugh, 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, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freeman, 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/Freeman, 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, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious why you reverted two

) 04:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Each article needs to meet notability criteria, and neither of those articles did. And to do that you need in-depth coverage of the station itself. I didn't single them out, they were in the New Page queue, and so were reviewed.

WP:OSE is not really a valid argument. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

10:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Can I suggest you start an AfD on this article if you think it should be deleted or redirected? Then if necessary we can use protection to enforce the result. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I created the page I marked in the subject line, and you have since redirected me in a completely illogical manner. This page exists: 2023 PDC Calendar I have created the results of the qualifiers based on the same template. The sources are the same, so either none of them have any validity, or both do. In fact, the results on the 2023 PDC Calendar page can be found on other wikipedia pages, while mine can't, and the sources have always proven the real thing everywhere. So what is the problem then? Either delete the original Calendar page as well, or please explain why the same sources on my page are not good? By the way, where you have redirected it, the things I have bundled are not there, so I don't understand, it makes no sense. Szpity88 (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be none then. I've corrected that error. Please read

WP:GNG, particularly the section on significant coverage, to better understand what makes something notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

But think about it, since 2017, we've had these PDC Calendar pages, so so far so good? Is it possible that you are the one who is misinterpreting something...? Szpity88 (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope.

WP:OSE isn't a very good argument. Wikipedia is monitored by volunteers, so it's not unusual for an inappropriate article to slip through the cracks. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Willow project

Hi, I see that you tagged a new article with an orphan tag, came back and did this minute edit of a comma and an apostrophe ( thats how you get so many edit counts!) but didnt check where on WP this term is already present, ie collaborating. I too "love" folks who drive by edit and dont improve an article as you state sarcastically on your user page. Wuerzele (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Try to make sense when you leave a message. It really helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, just a note to say thanks for reviewing the new articles of mine over the past couple of weeks - I just hope you're not getting too bored of reading about tall buildings in Greater Manchester :) Mmberney (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Never bored (except when I have to go through dozens of poor sports articles). And don't know if you're a fan or not, but condolences on the Manchester United game last night. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, Onel5969, hope you're well. I was wondering if the citations recently added to both Affinity Living Riverview and Oxygen Towers would warrant the removal of one, or both, of the notability tags now? For context, the former is one of only three buildings over 100m (328ft) tall in the City of Salford, and the latter is in the top 20 tallest in Greater Manchester. Out of interest, when a notability tag gets added to an article, who's typically responsible for checking if it's still valid? The reviewer or the author? Many thanks. Mmberney (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup. Nice job. Keep up the good work. Until it actually gets reviewed, the tag should be left on. After it gets reviewed, anyone can remove it, if the editor who placed it disagrees, they'll re-add it, and should open a discussion on the talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969, you reviewed the Wikipedia's entry/article on spatial neural networks that I wrote; thank you very much!! 7e8y (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 today you also reviewed the Wikipedia's entry/article on thought-action fusion that I wrote too; thank you so much!! 7e8y (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

As always, you're welcome. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi again Onel5969, today you reviewed 11 Wikipedia's redirects that I created; thank you very much for your time!-). 7e8y (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I notice you have added a Multiple Issues template to several list articles - 2010-/2014-/2015-/2020 in shooting. I am a little confused as to what you mean by these.

• Notability - Clearly the topic is itself notable - it covers an Olympic sport, one which has its own subsection on many major news site (e.g. BBC Sport - Shooting, Inside the Games, Times of India. I could dredge up some non English-language sites as well, but I think the point is made - the topic is reported at a topic level, not just occasional articles under the aegis of "Olympics" or something). Presumably your concern is with the contents of those lists - you feel that some events and entries within the list are not notable or the list selection criteria is inadequate. It would be immensely helpful if you could template those sections, or take it to Talk, instead of arbitrarily (and inconsistently) templating entire articles - you are presumably not debating the notability of the Olympics, Commonwealth Games or World Championships!?

• Primary sources - Yes yes, it is generally quicker to go through a series of events (ICFRA World Champs, African Championships, etc) and add that event for every applicable year whilst you have the relevant pages open (both source & wikipedia articles), than to add the "<Year> in" articles one at a time, looping through all the different organisations and websites for 2013, then rinse-and-repeat for 2014. A fair tag that you could have added would be
  WP:Globalise, since the existing articles are all somewhat Eur-Asian centric. I would gently note that as a high-volume drive-by editor, apparently leaning heavily on (semi-)automated tools, you're missing much of this nuance. The criticism is noted, and is in some way fair, but I'm a little confused as to why you would pick on these articles, unless you are engaging on a broader campaign, and will shortly add these templates to many of the abandoned sports-based list articles of dubious notability such as 2014 in esports (no citations whatsoever!) and 2014 in table tennis
  (all primary sources). Again, tagging specific sections of concern or going to Talk would be immensely more helpful than drive-by article-level templating.

All the best, Hemmers (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not how notability is derived. You must have in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show notability. Those templates, I agree, are inadequate. Over at NPP we're working on developing more specific templates, making the issues more clear. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, this is at least our 13th interaction since January 27, 2023 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SC_Staaken&oldid=1135824626), after having no interactions prior in my 4 years on wikipedia. We have had interactions in

and I believe in other pages that have since been deleted within a span of about 5 weeks.

As I've previously stated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onel5969/Archive_111#Please_stop_contacting_me), your interest in my work has made me uncomfortable. I think that's a reasonable feeling to have.

I just want to make sure that this is understood and noted.

Thank youKatoKungLee (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no interest in your work. If it shows up on the NPP thread, it gets reviewed. As far as I know, the only messages I've sent you are the ones I'm required to. Just want to make sure you understand that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel. Thank you for your diligent work. User:ScienceAdvisor was blocked recently as UPE. You have reviewed a few of their articles. It would be great if you can have a second look or best send them to AfC:

• Natalie Amrossi (was draftified before)
• ATHLYT
• StreetEasy
• Becca Conviser

81.147.117.44 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I ask you to return to the discussion of my article and change the status) Alterbulat (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I added references to a few news articles to prove notability. There aren't that many, I admit. I actually thought she'd be relevant because of her winning a medal on international stage, or was I mistaken? Best, Nicole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanquanbiantai (talk • contribs) 12:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

So, what do you say, does the article meet the criteria now? Wanquanbiantai (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969 I honestly don't want to bother you but I'm still unsure if the article meets the guidelines now... Wanquanbiantai (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, you marked this for notability concerns. What exactly is the concern? There's 10 sources listed, that are independent of each other. Some of the sources are national websites and some are from various states, so there's clearly national interest. The person is a world record holder. There's books and various websites listed.

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

He's a record holder of a non-notable record. Outside of that, he has zero notability. Clearly a case of

WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you please link me to the page here that defines "non-notable" records? This is not "one event" as the record still stands. Perhaps if the record was broken, that may be the case.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, because I can't find any information on it otherwise. Could save everyone a lot of time if I'm publishing things that are not allowed here due to non-notable records.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Please the page back into the main space. This is a list taken from the book cited, as explained in the lede of the list. I fail o see why it needs some ither references. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, because there is not enough information in the citation for it pass

WP:CIT as to what needs to be in a citation. You don't have to use the formatting there (although that would be nice), but the information is important. Stuff like isbn, page #'s, year of publication, etc. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

17:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello again

I was particularly concerned about a comment you made today that said, "Too late, this same editor also has

. I'm not sure that the comment was necessary or particularly added anything to the discussion. And with our history, it came across as a threat, a blackmail attempt and/or harassment.

I'm not personally offended if you want to nominate articles for deletion. In fact, I'd prefer you nominate them over just marking them as drafts as other users may have more sources and may not agree with the nomination. Nominate as many as you like. I'm still going to do the best I can to contribute here, no matter how many articles are nominated.

As you've been made aware here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&action=submit#Continued_concerns), I'm already uncomfortable with our interactions. I really don't think we should interact with each other in any manner as our interactions provide nothing positive and do little to better the site.

ThanksKatoKungLee (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You really need to become more familiar with notability guidelines. No threat, simple statement of fact, and letting another valued editor know that their fear was too late, it was already happening. Rather than complaining that you are being asked to follow policies and guidelines, you should learn from what now many other editors are telling you, and that way you could focus on making better articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I was keeping an eye on it for a couple months and trimmed it from big chnks on unref text. It looks like no one else cares. It looks like you are an experienced "deletionist" (in a good sense). Can you take a look at it?

Also it seems there is a "cross-contamination" in the interwikilinks of political terms "faction" and "fraction", the terms being "

) 20:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, just took a look and removed almost all the uncited material. If there was a suitable target, redirect would be a possibility. The biggest issue with taking it to AfD (PROD, imho, would not be appropriate), is that, just again my own opinion, it's probably a very notable term. If this were a newer article, draftify would definitely have been the response, but it's not eligible for draftification, due to its age. I've put it on my watchlist, so let's give it some time and see if someone develops it. If I were interested in politics, I might have a go at it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel. Wiki97828 has been quite insistent on my talk page that he doesn't have any COI/paid relationship with regard to Vineet Kumar Chaudhary. I'm not entirely sure what I think about that, but since the article has been approved by AfC and seems to be more-or-less neutrally written, perhaps you'd consider either removing/replacing the tag or going to COIN for further discussion? I don't have a horse in this race, of course, so I'm happy to trust your judgment. Hope you're doing well! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. There's a very significant and blatant piece of evidence showing that they are related somehow. I don't like to go into it on WP, as I don't like to give UPE/COI editors hints at how to avoid detection, but if you would like to know, email me and I'll hit you back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Emailed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969! Just FYI, this[1] was actually part of a cut-and-paste move[2]. Your revert resulted in a circular redirect.

I have restored the original page, which admittedly is an old blatantly undersourced stub which however can easily be expanded with multiple RS.

Btw, the editor who did the move is probably a sock of a blocked LTA with a long history of cut-and-paste moves (I'm already collecting diffs for an SPI). Austronesier (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Sorry I missed the C&P. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You re-deleted Fourth_Way_enneagram, why?

I don't think it's correct as various pages have links to Fourth_Way_Enneagram (upcase "E") that redirects to Fourth_Way_enneagram (downcase "e") that used to have the content you re-deleted, substituting it with another redirect not to the thing on page name (this enneagram), but to a book.

I understand that this isn't a scientific matter, unproved, etc.; but why deleting?

I hope to have an explaination or re-get the correct page.

Thanks and regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.247.64.177 (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are that sourcing needs to be of high-quality to be included. See

indiscriminate collection of information. We need to source and cite our sources. Sorry. jps (talk

) 20:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand "there was exactly one source for that page which could be verified", as I see various notes pointing at books or URLs, are they all false references???

If they are all false and this page deserves to be be deleted, why it existed for so many years and seemed perfectly legit?

If you think it should have more references, you could have added a note for a lacking of references, asking for more, just like I usually read in wikipedia articles.

Just removing the content of an article here for >10 years, completely breaks articles referencing to it, causing confusion.

I myself had to look through redirect revisions to get the content that disappeared just recently, and simply reverted the 2 edits breaking things (the bot and yours) as a service for other users like me, but not knowing how or not having time to search in old revisions.

I hope in a more sensible outcome: like old article + note asking for more refs.

Thanks and regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.247.64.177 (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Because I agree with jps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey Onel5969. I noticed that a couple of your articles were up at AfD but you weren't notified, so I thought I'd let you know. See Montezuma, Arizona and Piedra, Arizona. The nominator has nominated some of your articles before and notified you, but they seemed to have stop doing so for some reason. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

An Article I recently created,

.

Wikipedia:UPE and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest do not apply to me, as I am not getting paid for this by any means and do not have an external relationship with the organization in question nor am I employed by the organization. I've provided references throughout the article to both primary and secondary sources, and still do not understand what the issue is. I'll review the article to see if there's anything wrong but would appreciate if you could elaborate on the reasoning behind the move to draftspace. Ballads2110 (talk

) 14:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I am not being paid or asked by the organization to edit or write this Wikipedia article. Nor am I part of this organization or employed by it for any other reason. I have been trying to improve the article to include more independent sources after it's been moved to the draftspace just in case that was a factor that led to the move. I apologize for any inconvenience or misunderstanding that may have arisen from this and would like to know what the issue is in detail, and whether there's any improvements I can make and when the article may be ready to move to the mainspace. Ballads2110 (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Piedra, 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/Piedra, 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, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Montezuma, 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/Montezuma, 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, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troon, 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) 01:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I notice you posted a list of deep links into Wikipedialibrary to prove notability of

Troon, Arizona. Not all editors are eligible for accounts there; would you mind giving fuller citations for some of them, so that those of us with access to a university library can verify them? DavidLeeLambert (talk

) 20:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

They were all clips, so that anyone without an account should be able to view them. At least that's what an admin told me when I used them in a DYK about 6 months ago. Is that not the case? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sir, this tag doesn't seem appropriate on this page, in fact, before coming to the mainspace of this page, it has been discussed on the helpdesk that there is no direct relation with Chowdhary. I made this page on a fan basis, I have seen his TV shows so I know a lot about his life. Please consider removing this tag. Thank you Wiki97828 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, no. There is a clear indication of some type of relationship between you and the article's subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If you are feeling that due to the use of Chaudhary's photo, there is some kind of contact with him. So I would like to tell that this has been taken from his Instagram and I do not have the necessary information that how the free image is used, so I had to use it. Wiki97828 (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You are once again unilaterally blanking articles rather than seeing if anything can be salvaged, and without any discussion or consensus. I have found additional coverage for both Kid Miracleman and Young Miracleman but as I am currently away I have not had chance to add them in in response to your initial absurd notability tagging. You might tell yourself you are improving Wikipedia but you are being dogmatic, petty and rude. That you flagged Kid Miracleman when it's a rewrite of a poor, uncited article that's sat in such a state for years only shows that your principles and reviewing system are flawed. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to develop articles, the place to do that is draftspace, not mainspace. Sorry that you feel that WP policies and guidelines are rude. Would you like me to move them to draft for you? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The article was developed in draftspace but once again, and you continue to sidestep this, you yourself are violating Wikipedia policies yourself by your unilateral blanking of articles without discussion, consensus or any serious suggestions as to how any material can be saved or salvaged. But then you avoided that when it was put to you before, even pretending the question hadn't been asked, so I don't expect any sort of explanation as to why you pick and choose which Wikipedia policies you follow this time. I am on the road until Sunday and am unable to undo your vandalism until then. But undo it I will. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, you really need to understand WP policies better. Every newly created article goes through a review process. Until you understand policies and procedures better it is pretty pointless to have an ongoing redirecting articles which fail notability, as ATD, is a very well-used policy. Throw the word vandalism around and you could get blocked. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Kid Miracleman was a preexisting page, one you had no problem with until it was expanded, or plain just didn't care about due to inconsistent application. Your inability to give any constructive criticism, explain why the current references in the articles don't meet muster and provide any sort of guidance or discussion about how it may be improved while also not even making any attempt to incorporate the material in the page you have redirected the articles to is also against Wikipedia policy. If there is a better word for that than vandalism I apologise, but given your refusal to explain the perceived inconsistencies, discuss anything before blanking huge sections of referenced text or offer any sort of constructive feedback it is hard to extend good faith to your pattern if behaviour. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That's the second time you've used the term vandalism. Once more and I'll have no choice but report you to ANI. The only inconsistency is in your mind. You have been given constructive feedback, you just simply refuse to take it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

So even mentioning The Word is report-worthy? Crikey, that sounds fair and balanced. Again, show me one place you have tried to engage constructively. Did you attempt to discuss on the articles' talk pages? Or my talk pages? Or give any suggestions as to sources that might pass notability (I have some, I just haven't had chance to incorporate them in the articles as I have yet to have chance between you flagging the articles for notability and unilaterally blanking them)?

And again you appear to be sidestepping questions - how was

Kid Marvelman

as it stood until two days ago fine as a standalone article but suddenly after I expand it it's now not noteworthy?

Why do you consider it acceptable to blank pages and turn them into redirects but put no work into merging the information into the article they redirect for? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Implying that someone is a vandal is an attack, which is what you did, despite you trying to weasel out of it. All of my edit summaries are constructive. You may not like them, they may be brief, but they explain the action succinctly. And again, saying "I just haven't had chance to incorporate them in the articles" is an excellent argument for working in draftspace. The KM article was not fine, it simply did not pop up on the NPP queue. It wasn't good then, and still isn't, which is why it was redirected. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I said I find it difficult to find a different explanation, and I stand by that, I'm just not letting you weasel (this is fun, we can throw around insults in certain ways!) out of this on a technicality if saying The Word a third time allows you to report me. I thought the articles passed notability based on comparisons with numerous other articles you are happy to leave spreading misinformation due to them not being in the NPP queue. I developed them in user space and made attempts to engage other users in discussion as to suitability on both the extant Miracleman talk page and then after submitting the articles their own talk pages.

You flagged them as not. I have done some research as a counter and have not had chance to incorporate them in the articles for personal reasons over something like 48 hours. You have taken it upon yourself to blank the articles, making no attempt to incorporate the information in the list articles, in the meantime, and have once again done so without any attempt to gain consensus for doing so such as via discussion on the article's talk pages or an AfD discussion.

I do not see how your part in the process is either constructive or improves Wikipedia because it seems on what you've said so far it goes no deeper than you thinking your actions are fine and need no further explanation than dismissive referrals to cherry-picked policies while ignoring both other policies and anything approaching common courtesy. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

There are other articles you have written which are fine (I think I've marked at least 2 of them reviewed in recent days), but in this instance, since you seem to have difficulty understanding policies and procedures on WP, this is fruitless. Don't post on my talk page again. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello dear sir

I am parwiz ahmadi, one of the Wikipedia users.

I hope you will be find , I have write an article (Din Mohammad jurat )

Can you please review it and inform me is it Complete or need further Information to put"

Thnak you for your cooperation with me

Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969 Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice job. Although be careful of excessive citations. I know you want to show their notability, but it's best to only have 2-3 citations for any given fact in an article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

The

.

Also, the stadium will be one of the venues for the 2023 Campeonato Brasileiro 2023 Série D, the fourth tier of the national championship.

I added the info above to the article. Please consider reviewing it. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice job. I've removed the tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey.. is the

) 14:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Simply because it has zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@

) 14:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Since you canvassed me, I cannot in good faith !vote at the AfD. Besides, looking at it, I'm on the fence as I see both sides of the argument. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure if you are the individual to ask of this, but if you could delete Draft:List of UMass Dartmouth Corsairs head football coaches, Draft:Jaedin Prudent, and Draft:Julian Hammond (American football) as none of them are either needed or notable that'd be wonderful. Thanks. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. No, I'm not an admin, so I can't delete anything. If they are drafts you created, I can ask to have them deleted for you, or you could do that yourself by adding a {{Db-author}} tag to the drafts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Why did you think that the sources are not reliable of the page "Fortuna Sittard in European football"? All of the sources are from uefa.com. Is UEFA not accepted as a reliable source? Am I missing something here? Regards... User:Magawla61 mgwlMagawla61 (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Never said they were unreliable. But they are primary, and primary sources do not go towards notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please tell me the differences between this page [3] and this page

Fortuna Sittard in European football? They seem to be the same. There are links from uefa.com. Are the links from uefa.com primary links? I am only trying to get the point about the primary links. Thank you. Regards... Magawla61 (talk) Magawla61 (talk

) 22:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)mgwl

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sundad, 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/Sundad, 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) 01:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shawmut, 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/Shawmut, 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) 01:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I was somewhat surprised to see the refimprove tag added to Arched Harp, since most sentences have a citation. Is there any particular place that struck you as being weak? I don't mind working further, but I'm somewhat at a loss as to where you're pointing. Best wishes, Jacqke (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. While the article is very well done, and is well-cited for the most part, there are several uncited assertions. In "Structure", "Variations", "History" (more than one), "Early image", "Mesopotamia" "India, Indonesia", "Nuristan", "Southeast Asia, Burma" (more than one), "Southeast Asia", "Egypt" (more than one), and "Sub-Saharan Africa". I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll look againJacqke (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You sent a huge number of links that were supposed to go to the country Electorate of Cologne to the religious Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne instead. I think most of your edits in this batch (search for "Cologne") need to go to Electorate of Cologne, as they are about temporal power, not religious organisation. (It is complicated because the Archbishop of Cologne was both the archbishop of the diocese and the head of state of the Electorate). Could you check and undo your edits? It is always better to link to a disambiguation page than to link to the wrong page. —Kusma (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey there. My apologies, my interpretation of those articles was that it should be redirected to the target I selected. I'll be more than happy to simply reverse those edits, however, I can't seem to figure out how to get the batch of edits you reference to load correctly. I clicked on the link you provided, and it simply brings up all my contributions. I went to the search area, and the only place I found where I could enter a search term was in the "tag filter", and it produced zero results. Where do I go to search for the term "Cologne"? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries, the history of the Holy Roman Empire is insanely complicated and easy to misunderstand. The link I gave should bring up (too many) of your contributions from a few weeks ago. You can then use your browser's search function to find your relevant edits in that page (ctrl-F on my computer). Your edits are between 12:04 and 13:25 on 13 February 2023. (Unfortunately I am not aware of a good way to search for edit summaries within Wikipedia). —Kusma (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work on it tomorrow. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think I got all of them. It looks like a couple of editors had corrected quite a few of them already. I reverted most of what remained. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Super, thanks! I'll go through the dablinks. —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @

) 08:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Onel5969, a gentle reminder about this topic. If there are no UPE/COI issues remaining then I would like to move the pages back to main space. Regards, The Discoverer (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This article Sonu Kanwar is written about a famous rajasthani singer and you tagged notability tag. Kindly you must be remove this tag. if you want proove that you can search on internet. Wikione9 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be your job to do the research, and then include the in-depth sourcing in the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Review again Sonu Kanwar Wikione9 (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I looked over the formatting hours and hours, and still there are some mistakes :-(. Thank you for helping me! Kind regards, Naomi Hennig (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Those are very minor changes I made, and exist in tons of articles. Personally, regarding the dashes, I still have to go back over articles I create and fix them, since I find it onerous to manually insert the correct ones as I'm writing the article. And it only took me three years to figure out that I didn't have to pipe stuff like artists to artists. Keep up the good work, although the article could use a few more things in it cited (e.g. "The massive stone is split in two at the top, thus suggesting the two siblings. The bowl (the pot) rests on the two indicated heads of the siblings.", and the first couple of lines in Work section. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

{{subst:Deprod}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristin_Thomson I wish to object to this page deletion since i was actually looking for this person's biography. I'm not related to the person. Not sure about how to proceed to register my objection. Regards. ~ Youyouca (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

By removing the prod, that is voicing your opposition. If it goes to AfD, then you should voice any opposition on the AfD page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello - I noticed an edit you reverted at

) 18:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

There's definite and blatant indications of COI/UPE editing. In addition, if a new article would be created, this person would not be the primary topic and should be created with a dab. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to get into anything like an edit war with you, but it's fairly ridiculous that this page should be set up to redirect to 2022 English cricket season; that is to say, the previous cricket season. Clearly it bears no relation to that. You would not redirect the one to the other, any more than you would redirect 1980 United States presidential election to 1976 United States presidential election. It would therefore be better to leave a stub which can later be expanded on than the redirect. FieldOfWheat (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I could move it to draft if you'd prefer. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand the reasoning behind your template of lack of notibility. I have multiple sources on my article, not to mention it is one of the bigger private grocery chains in Minnesota. Especially when we have aritcles like Reasor's with only 3 sources and similarly sized to Kowalski's not be questioned. Ive seen articles for grocery chains with 2 locations that dont get that template. I guess im just wonder what I should do to prove its notable given the fact that it has multiple sources, and is a large chain in Minnesota. TheUSConservative (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi.

WP:OSE isn't a good argument. To show notability, you need in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sourcing. And this comes close, one of the articles qualifies, and at least two of the others give it more than just a brief mention. However, interviews, being primary sources, do not go towards notability. The article is very close, but you need at least one more, and two would be better, articles which go in-depth about the chain. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

19:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, does this qualify now? TheUSConservative (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup. Although be wary of sources like the Supermarket News. Industry sources can be simple mouthpieces for their constituencies. Thanks for your efforts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you indicate what you had in mind. To my knowledge, I have not done anything different than usual.

Regards Bebington (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Okay, cites like "The Times 28 March 1963" do not contain enough information to pass

WP:CIT and get an idea of what information is needed for different types of sources. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

22:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I do normally add the full citation for the Times and have now included them, also for Hansard. The reference section looks a bit of a mess but the infoormation is now there. Presumably you can now remove the banner.

Regards Bebington (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for blocking you Onel5969! I was after the IP you reported to AIV. Sorry again! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Well Dang. Lol. Mistakes happen. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Now that your block log is sullied, I'm calling for your New Page Reviewer rights to be revoked. 😂 Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I was gonna make a similar joke! XD - UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969. Since this seems to have been lost, here is a copy of my reply to the Alfred Gantner article you moved into the draft.

Onel5969, why did you disqualify the following sources of the article as not reliable and independent?

- https://www.handelszeitung.ch/panorama/machtnetz-von-alfred-gantner-der-geldvermehrer

- https://www.bazonline.ch/der-unternehmensgaertner-589476867621

- https://www.luzernerzeitung.ch/leben/ein-neuer-bischof-fur-richterswil-ld.1149216

- https://www.republik.ch/2021/01/18/fredys-albtraum

- https://www.luzernerzeitung.ch/schweiz/mit-ikea-mobeln-und-zwei-computern-zu-milliarden-drei-schweizer-machten-die-partners-group-zum-weltkonzern-ld.1265075

- https://www.bernerzeitung.ch/der-ueberzeugungstaeter-720493946802

- https://www.forbes.com/profile/alfred-gantner/

I added following sources to the draft today

- https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/breitling-partners-group-uebernimmt-mehrheit-an-der-uhrenmarke-ld.1718525

You invested less than 2 minutes in the review of this article. Are you able to read German sources without translation?

Ruedi B (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I was curious if you might be able to help me get this article reviewed so it can be moved into the main space? The company is certainly notable enough .. It is a media licensing company that has like 10m subscribers.. There are literally a hundred sources.. Wired, Bloomberg, screenrant, LA Times, tech crunch, etc..I would appreciate it.. Let me know if there are any changes that need to be made..? UCLAPhdCandidate (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, for a fellow Bruin, I'll take a look at it when I have a chance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Onel5969,

I frequently come across the {fansite} maintenance tag on articles and I often have trouble finding an issue. For example, in October 2022, you tagged Bktherula. I don't understand what makes the article seem as if it was written from a fan's POV. I removed a sentence in the lead section ("She is recognized for her aesthetic and devoted fanbase.") because that is not what the source said ("BK has cultivated a devoted fanbase with her inventive aesthetic and headbanging live shows"). Other than that, I can't see anything problematic, on a surface level. The short "Early life" and "Career" sections seem pretty straightforward. What am I missing? Mooonswimmer 19:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Good morning Thank you for your understanding. Greetings to you. Jimmy Yelzer (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Too promotional? Temple Cycles Keys Soulcare ABHammad (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you were right to tag it, but I don't think it is so overly promotional as to warrant a CSD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello

I am really confused by the desire to name the article on the political party "New Political Center - Girchi" instead of just "Girchi"... What is this decision based on? The party's name is not "New Political Center", it is officially and legally registered only as Girchi. That is its name in registration documents, per the party's constitution, in Parliament, on electoral ballots, etc.

The "New Political Center" part was only briefly its legal name when it was first registered in 2016, but that is long gone. I'm not trying to violate standards, I'm trying to give the article its proper, encyclopedic name. AlexandreAssatiani (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Then follow policy. I've provided you with the link to

WP:CUTANDPASTE, which should explain it to you. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

16:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Mildred Johnson Library

Thank you for reviewing the article. If you look at the editing history, you will see that other editors mentioned the "notability" issue as I was working on the draft and submitting it for approval. After attending a Wikipedia Education webinar regarding the use of Wikipedia in teaching, it is my understanding that Wikipedia is looking to increase the number of articles related to academic institutions and libraries in its content. If this is the case, I hope that this article will remain on Wikipedia (rather than be deleted). I would like to use it during an online edit-a-thon event during National Library Week 2023. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Note: I do not have any additonal information to add to the article now. BTW - You do an incredible amount of work for Wikipedia. Finding your edit on the Mildred Johnson Library article required combing through hundreds of edits ... all completed on 3/17/23. WOW. Thanks again. Amycarson12 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. And thanks for your kind words. To show notability, you need in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. So, right now, you have several primary sources from the University and affiliated groups. The nces.ed.gov does not load, so I can't evaluate it; The Tri-College one is also primary; the Scholder piece does not mention the library by name, and that is just a brief mention; the dedication program is also primary; her obit in the Wahpeton Daily News is not a whole lot about the library; the same with the inforum piece. I looked on Google, Books, News, and Newspapers.com and couldn't really find much more. But you might have access to sources I don't. My best suggestion would be to look through the WDN archives (which are not on newspapers.com) and find see if there are any in-depth sources there. If you could come up with two, in addition to what is currently there, it would pass GNG. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel! You recently moved this page back to draft space. I understand there is policy stating articles that previously went through AfD must go through AfC but I'm not able to find it. Could you please point me in the direction of the policy you mentioned? Warm regards. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no policy, but there is consensus. Usually, if something has been AfD, and its a recent AfD, it would be G4'd. This is not terribly recent, but there is nothing in the article which has changed since the AfD to indicate it has become more notable. Add to that the fact that this was submitted through AfC, declined, and then moved to mainspace without any substantive improvement, and it should go through review. If moved back, I'll G4 it, but I though it best to give you the opportunity to improve it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. If you check the talk page I resolved the issue the editor who rejected it in January had cited. I've added several reliable sources to the talk page in addition to the citations on the main page to establish notability since it was initially deleted. Of course, the content isn't going to substantially change, because that wasn't the reason for deletion over two years ago. Could you make some recommendations for improvement? I want to avoid overloading the article with citations, but I'm not opposed to expanding it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The article is already incubated enough. I have provided independent sources from published newspapers and research articles. What is your personal problem in this? All sources cite about the film Subhodayam as part of viswanath's filmography, please read the sources. I dont understand why you are putting ur personal perspective here ? I will take this issue to arbitration committee. Kindly read these independent sources here.

• https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/regional-cinema/story/k-viswanath-passes-away-92-why-the-filmmaker-par-excellence-was-a-guru-and-legend-in-indian-cinema-2329928-2023-02-03
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281059181_Inclusiveness_through_art_films_in_Telugu_A_modern_to_postmodern_analysis_of_K_Viswanath's_films
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/the-filmmaker-with-the-midas-touch-remembering-the-legendary-k-viswanath/articleshow/97605425.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/k-viswanath-who-passed-away-on-the-43rd-anniversary-of-his-iconic-film-sankarabharanam-broke-star-stereotypes-in-his-films/article66466706.ece

and kindly stop interfering in well sourced articles, this is sheer abusing of fellow editors, Kindly do not just waste my time here. I repeat do not abuse me and waste my time. Fostera12 (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. And if you can't be civil, stay off my talk page. You are the one wasting others' time. And personal attacks can get you blocked, so please be careful. Okay, I think your talking about Subhodayam. The four sources do not show notability. Not a single one of them is in-depth about the film. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The four sources are talking about viswanath's filmography including Subhodayam. The article is analysing each of his films including Subhodayam which was remade as kamchor, If Subhodayam is not notable, delete kamchor also. Please read the research article analysis on his filmography. What else you need ? you want K viswanath to wake up from dead and tell you that it is his film which had theatrical release? what nonsense are you saying ? I am attacking you ? Fostera12 (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Calling something vandalism, when it is not, is a personal attack. And I asked you to be civil. Now I'm asking that you familiarize yourself with notability guidelines, as you clearly do not understand them. You might also take a look at

WP:OSE. Now, since civility seems to be beyond your capabilities. Stay off my talk page. Any further comments posted here by you will be reverted without reading. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

14:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Wishnick

Hi there! Thanks for taking a look at the Robert Wishnick article. I'll be deorphaning it shortly; no worries. Also, would you mind pointing me to where the decapitalization of titles has been discussed, please? I vaguely recall seeing a discussion about that in the past, but for the life of me can't find it now. I'm just finding it strange that the titles would not be capitalized in the article while they clearly are in the text; plus, "chairman of the Board" just looks plain weird! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 18, 2023; 17:36 (UTC)

Hi

MOS:Caps, where, in the first sentence, it reads, "capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence". Further down on that guideline there is a section titled, "Titles of people", and the first bullet says, "In generic use, apply lower case to words such as president, king, and emperor". This would also apply to chairman, professor, doctor, etc. Except when used as their title, "President Kennedy", "King George", "Emperor Meiji", "Professor Melnitz", "Doctor Martin Luther King", etc. Looking at your article, there are several other capitalizations which should be in lower case. But as I said, AWB isn't perfect. I did make the changes in the lead for you. Hope this helps.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

19:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Onel5969 In regard to this subject, i very read we and understood, but the fact is i have not been paid for any edits, nor in any way connected to the Subject. I don't even have any monetary expectations. I do not know any one close to the subject. I have just realised that In my country there are high profile in individuals who pay media not to write about them. I was making some research about him only to find there he got nothing talking about him on wiki despite being a high profile business magnet in Uganda. May be he pays for him not to be exposed, same with many others i searched about. So i decided to checkout google and came up with a draft about my findings, i had even put {Stub}} at the top but some one came and removed it. Africanaz (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Same with the Wim Vanhelleputte guy, there was nothing in Wikipedia despite him being a CEO for a multinational telecommunications corporation for over a decade, I just decide to get references from Google and make one, may be it was also his policy not to be in wiki, I can't tell but created that. Africanaz (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I have just learnt to get a way of completely rephrasing some word from a way written in the refference. May be that's why it was looking like UPE OR COI in the first place. But hope its now a better draft before it can be submitted!!! Africanaz (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this page supposed to be on the main page? Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure what you mean. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. I created Matthew Belloni on Thursday and it's yet to be reviewed. It should be an open and shut case given his clear notability. Such being the case, do you mind reviewing it? I only ask because you edited the page and you're the reigning New Page Reviewer of the Year. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Following up on this as you have a very active Talk Page and may have missed it. If you are unable to review it, is there a noticeboard where I can post at, asking that someone take a look at it? Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I was hoping you could stop moving my lebanon town pages to draftspace. All the articles I've created are legally recognized municipalities which makes them automatically notable per

) 11:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Then you need to show that, the last one I moved had zero references to show it was a legally recognized populated place. There was one reliable source, which did not mention the place. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 18:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 18:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 19:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 01:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 03:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 03:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel, I hope you are doing well! Can you please guide me, how to find redirected wiki pages ? So that I can expand them if they are meeting wikipedia's guidelines. Regards Bimanmandal626 (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The only way I know to find redirected pages is to put the name of the article you're looking for into the search field and hit enter. If it redirects you to another page, then it's a redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If a redirect has been tagged by a Wikiproject it will appear in one of the sub-categories of Category:Redirect-Class articles. --John B123 (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I've been busy adding more sources to

. How do you think it's going so far? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely coming along. Be wary of stuff from PRN Newswire, as they are simply press releases. It's not that you can't use them, but they have very limited uses, since they are primary sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. I will only use PRN Newswire if there's nothing else. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You should really discuss before you redirect an article. This meets the criteria for notability for books. It has published works about it. [4] Nocturnal781 (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I have a better idea. You should really make sure something is sourced well enough to pass

WP:GNG. It had been tagged for notability for two weeks, without the requisite sources being added. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

22:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:NBOOK#1. If you add a reception section to what you previously wrote including these refs, then IMO this article should be good to go. (Onel5969, please reply if you disagree). Thanks. VickKiang (talk)

01:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi VickKiang - I rarely disagree with you, and this would not be one of those instances. I have no problem with book articles which show several reviews, which when I redirected this, it lacked. If they were added, then it would meet the notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

17:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

When you're right, you're right. I only looked at the votes, and not your original comment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no way I'd have worked on it if I didn't think the sources were there! Thanks for looking. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem. And thanks for all you do on WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think a merge is reasonable. The school has some notability and history. It was poorly titled. It is certainly significant to the small community where it has long belonged. Take care. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, FC Seoul's 2023 season started in March. This article is about ongoing events. Please wait. FC Seoul's season article have notability like European Football Club season article such as 2022–23 Real Madrid CF season Also, The contents of 2023 FC Seoul season article adequately supported by reliable sources such as FC Seoul Official website

I hope that you understand what I mean. Thanks

Footwiks (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. I Just wanted to find out something... The other day, you found a paragraph on the "Route" Section of the

article with about three citations clearly showing after the last full stop! Then, you decided to claim that that paragraph is "uncited material" & erased it, meanwhile the three citations were clearly there for all to see. I really can't understand how that edit summary you wrote ("removed uncited material") was applicable!

Also, the "route section" on a road article is supposed to describe a route from start to finish from my understanding (content written there is written in a "specific order"). So, this thing of going to that section of an article & "picking which paragraphs to erase" (like erasing the start & erasing the ending & leaving a middle paragraph) does not make sense; you are better off erasing the entire section, as removing even one paragraph disturbs the entire explanation! I still remember the way you did it on the

article.

My advice on this last part is do NOT "pick" which paragraphs deserve to stay solely on the basis of "which citations are present"! I Suggest that after you have "Published Changes", you "read what the section is saying" (how you have left it) before you walk away from the article!

From the "Route" Section of the

article, you erased the "start of the route" & you also erased the "end of the route" & you left a paragraph which is explaining the "middle of the route" on its own! Do you think that paragraph you left behind contained the right or applicable words to be used in describing the "M13"? Again, it would have been better to erase the entire section, as it doesn't make sense how you thought that from the entire scenario, that was the paragraph with the right words to use. Appearance Matters!

I just came here to give you advice; READ what the page looks like after you have "Published Changes" before you walk away from it. If the statement you left "looks incomplete" or doesn't make sense generally, do NOT leave it like that!

Thank You. Chils Kemptonian (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. In the first case, I did remove too much, and should not have touched anything before the 3rd ref. In the second case, only the single sentence in that section is supported by the ref. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was incorrect, in the first case, those two refs didn't add anything to the article, and the removal of the content was correct. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969, Deepak Singhal is a Nigeria National Honors Award Winner and a Global Business Executive who has been citied by multiple independent publications. Few examples that might fit him under the basic notability criteria are https://hbsforum.org/podcasts/5-instant-noodles-in-nigeria-a-market-creating-innovation-talking-with-toloram-africa-ceo-deepak-singhal, OR https://hbr.org/2018/11/africa-a-crucible-for-creativity. Hope this helps. Can you please help me understand the reason for the notability tag and how to get it resolved please? Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Singhal_(executive) . Thanks in advance. Fernadoccan (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I left a reply on the article's talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, received. Thanks for your quick reply. Fernadoccan (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

You claimed that I should put links concerning this list in order not to be an orphan. After I put several links, some users (mainly Hungarians) undid my edits, mentioning various reasons (e.g. WP:NOR or WP:DUE). Could you please contact them and agree upon this matter? Thank you. --Silverije 19:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd need to see what you linked to know what I was talking about. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969! On 9 March 2023‎, you added an advert template to the article Steven Harris Ramdev. Tonight I've tried to clean up the article (there have been some edit conflicts that caused some confusion) and re-add the advert template. However, @Indiantalentnews123 keeps removing the template whenever I've re-added it, despite not removing any of the information. I've started a discussion about this on the article talk page and thought I'd let you know since you are the one who added it. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't know how I missed this to begin with (except that they were tricky in what they did), but it's a UPE/COI editor, so I've moved the article to draftspace. Will add comments on their talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Refrain from adding templates regarding the article's notability not being notable enough in the future until you learn what notability on Wikipedia is. ImperialMajority (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Laughing my ass off at your ignorance. Thanks for the chuckle. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What ignorance exactly? Looking at your talk page, you've sabotaged multiple other pages and selfishness is evident. ImperialMajority (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Please, stop. Your utter lack of knowledge is astounding! Cracks me up at how little knowledge you have. You do not even have the rudimentary knowledge that you should be linking to the issue you wish to discuss, and then add to that your lack of civility. Hilarious. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok Onel, if you really want to say that I have a lack of knowledge regarding notability, that is actually hilarious. Please refrain from making any additional comments to showcase your lack of knowledge regarding notability and Wikipedia in general! ImperialMajority (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, since you are both rude and ignorant, I had to try to attempt to figure out wtf you were talking about. Since the only overlap I can see is [Council of Hungarian Internet Providers]], where you reverted an aptly placed notability tag, that must be what you're talking about. And you think a primary source and a single short blurb about an organization denotes notability? Wow, even I couldn't conceive of someone being that ignorant and then attempting to lecture others about lack of understanding notability. Now stay off my talk page. The humor in your posts has worn thin, now you simply bore me. Any further posts on my talk page will simply be deleted without reading. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Oops, that blurb is also from a primary source.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, in this edit at List of preserved locomotives in Canada you seemed to pass judgment that the list is okay as it is, and need not be "under construction" any longer. I experienced it as being fired from the job, and subsequently directed my Wikipedia editing time elsewhere. Development is sorely needed there, however, so I come here to request: please apply yourself to developing the list-article pronto. I believe you are supposed to use "under construction" for articles that are, well, in major development, and you may additionally or instead use {{in use}} when you are actively editing and there's possibility of edit conflicts. Removing "in use" and "under construction" must indicate that you have completed your work. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi "Under Construction" and "InUse" tags are similar, although InUse tags are for very short periods, but Under Construction is also for temporary use as well, as it states, "has not been edited in several hours". I used to believe the same thing you did, for the template used to echo that it could be left for several days. And that's how I used to use it myself. However, this edit changed the concept. There was a discussion about it (I do not remember where, I wish it had taken place on the template's talk page), and that thought process was upheld. Please feel free to revert me and begin a more detailed discussion if you feel strongly about it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, the precision of your response, meaning that link especially, is helpful. Sure, I opened discussion at the template's talk page, please feel free to comment. We are not done, however. I don't think I should have to revert and begin a more detailed discussion about the preserved locomotives in Canada, even if the change to template directions sticks. And, I wish for you to proceed. Could you please do so forthwith, eh? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 10:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Do "we are not done here" (meant to be heard as ominous in tone) and a Canadianism not merit a smiley? Oh well. :( --Doncram (talk,contribs) 11:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, of course they do. Just been focused on a few other things. I just commented on your discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that was actually really helpful. Thank you to User:JBW, too, for considering and acting. But, argh, this takes away my excuses for not resuming work on List of preserved locomotives in Canada. I have done a whole lot, too much, of developing at big list articles recently, including List of museum ships, List of museum ships in North America, List of windmills in the United States, List of windmills in New York. Oh well... Have a nice day, anyhow. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 13:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus (talk) 14:22, 24 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. LeFnake (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello dear sir , I am parwiz Ahmadi . a Wikipedia user . as you are aware I am a established many topics about several matters. I have good activity in Persian Wikipedia also . but there is a admin by the name of @Persia which every time delete my topics without any reason . when I ask him for reason He didn't answer for any one .

if you attend in his talk page , there is many peoples and writers who have problems with this admin.

recently I established a Persian and English topic about a very well known person in Afghanistan by the name of (Din Mohammad jurat ) (دین محمد جرأت) which two times he delated my topic with out any reason . and also he blocked my Id from Persian wikipedia .

I hope you can dismissed him from Wikipedia org Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that I forgot . He also locked the name of (دین محمد جرأت) in persian wikipedia . and still no one can publish a topic by this name . Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not someone who can help you with this. If you feel the behavior is contentious, you'll need to report them at

WP:ANI, however, if you do, be aware you'll need to provide differences to show how their behavior is contentious, and not just an issue about content. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

18:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Los Angeles FC 2

Can we move this page back to the mainspace since they already have a roster and begin play this Sunday? Thank YOU...Roberto221 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes a person can be 100% right and still get trampled.  // Timothy :: talk  22:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

lol... I think the biggest issues I have with that discussion are a) the real disagreement was between a long-term editor (with a very ambiguous understanding of GNG) and myself, not with the article's creator; b) the article's creator was not a newbie, so they should know better; and c) the lack of comprehension of some admins about what it is that NPP does. Regardless, that's why I rarely participate in the frequent discussions I'm subjected to at ANI. Regardless, thanks for the work you do on the project. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You might consider making an exception in this case. Edit-warring and personal attacks aren't justified by differences in opinion over the GNG. Regardless of all the good work you do, this isn't a good look and creates the perception that you don't consider yourself accountable. Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969, thanks for checking out the new article I created, Tarek Hassan. I would like to tackle your notability tag. To be honest I'm a bit confused. I believe I have included a wide range of references to news articles citing the researcher and his work, all independent and reliable secondary sources (with their own wikipedia pages as independent media), e.g. Europa Press, El Confidencial, Atresmedia, EurekAlert, SciTech... Are they not enough, or not valid? Could you please advice on how to improve the article notability to remove its tag? This researcher received the most prestigious research grant in the EU, the ERC, and I think his work is notable. Thanks. Janeender (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. The issue with the current sourcing is that most of it is either primary or simple mentions. He sure looks notable. However, I did a google scholar search on him, and couldn't find anything. At least I think I didn't. There are 3 Tarkek Hassan's, but only one has anything to do with this Hassan's field of study, see this. But I can't align that Scholar profile with the person in your article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Ohh gotcha. His GScholar profile is referenced in the See Also and in the Wikidata links. There are several news articles focusing on his work, I can link them here in a few minutes. Janeender (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I missed the external links. Not sure why they didn't come up in my Scholar search. Thanks for pointing it out. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh wonderful. Thanks for removing the notability tag. And as you guessed I meant "External links", not "See also". Janeender (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Good morning/afternoon/evening! (Please choose the appropriate greeting, depending on your time zone)

On a recent AfD, you mentioned a discussion about redirects that had taken place at ANI. Could you point me to that discussion? I can't seem to find it. Thanks! Joyous! Noise! 17:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Sure: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969 - although it's rather long. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Joyous! Noise! 03:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Onel5969! Thank you so much for your feedback on the article. Akhilesh Dubey is an eminent advocate and solicitor who has been citied by renowned platforms like 'India Today,' 'The Indian Express,' 'The Times of India' and 'The Daily Guardian.' He has also represented famous personalities in various notable cases (as mentioned in the article). I do acknowledge that the references are not ones with in-depth coverage but there are multiple articles that address his involvement in the same. Would those not count within the notability criteria? If those aren't sufficient enough could you please let me in on what I can do in this case as I have no idea how to go forth with this? Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Jae Yumeko1 (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Mentions and being quoted in the press do not equate to notability. For academics, there are two paths to showing notability:

WP:GNG. You'd need at least 3 (to be safe) in-depth sources to show they meet notability. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

19:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay!

How should I go forth with the situation then? Is it better to wait till the discussion gets over or can I move the article back to the sandbox and work on it in these aspects? Yumeko1 (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Onel5969. Please would you kindly explain to me the reason why the above article is tagged as an orphan? We are not permitted to link articles to disambiguation pages, so how can I create links to the page? I have added more categories to the page, and created the talk page (which of course links to it), but what else can I do to prevent the page from being tagged an orphan? Storye book (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. It was picked up as an orphan, because you failed to add the {{disambiguation}} template to it. Feel free to remove it and add the template. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. All is well now. Storye book (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I take it as a principle that every Test match and every ODI should have a record on Wikipedia, even if it just as part of a series, e.g. 1986–87 Australian Tri-Series.

Second, every ODI up to 2004 now has its own potted scorecard on Wikipedia recording it with the highest scorers and wicket-takers. Up to 2004. You chose to delete the article on the ground of lack of references.

There are six references in the article, if you read it. It's just references are not there in the usual way. A reference marked '[Scorecard]', as it is, is still a reference, just not in the usual manner. Someone really needs to talk to WP:CRICKET about this. FieldOfWheat (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, your initial principle is just simply incorrect. WP is not a sports almanac, every article must meet notability. And to do that, you need in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. While there is no set limit, three is a good place to be to avoid someone questioning its notability. Currently, the article I moved to draft has zero. If you add the requisite sourcing, I'll be happy to have another look at it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you mind giving this a look for me? I know it hasn't been in submission that long but I figured reaching out to a specific reviewer might help expedite the process, and I remembered you because you've been kind enough to review a lot of my new articles. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Your right, it never hurts to ask, I don't always do the review, but yours was very well done. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you so much! Invisiboy42293 (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Adobe Photoshop Elements and Adobe Photoshop CC are two different software products that are designed to meet different user needs. Adobe Photoshop Elements is a less advanced version of Adobe Photoshop CC that is designed for home users and hobbyists who want to perform basic photo editing tasks. It is a simplified version of Photoshop CC with fewer features and tools, and it is much more affordable. Some of the key features of Adobe Photoshop Elements include basic photo editing tools such as crop, resize, and rotate; automatic photo enhancements using the Smart Fix feature; guided editing features that help users to create various effects, such as tilt-shift, vignettes, and more; and various filters and effects. Adobe Photoshop CC, on the other hand, is a professional-grade software used by designers, photographers, and artists for creating and editing images, graphics, and illustrations. It is a more complex and powerful tool that offers advanced features such as layer-based editing, advanced color correction, advanced photo manipulation tools, and 3D imaging capabilities. Photoshop CC is designed for professional use and It is available as a subscription service, which means that users need to pay a monthly or yearly fee to use the software. Adobe Photoshop Elements is a one time purchase and you get a Serial Key which can be used on two computers at a time. Overall, the main difference between Adobe Photoshop Elements and Adobe Photoshop CC is their target audience and the level of features and complexity. Photoshop Elements is suitable for beginners and hobbyists who want to perform basic photo editing tasks, while Photoshop CC is intended for professional use and provides advanced features and tools for creating and editing images and graphics. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That is all irrelevant. The article was merged as part of an AfD discussion. Which you know, as you participated in the discussion. If you continue to revert, you'll most likely be blocked from editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by that is all irrelevant? I am an Adobe Employee part of Adobe Photoshop Elements team. This has been highlighted by multiple users that Adobe Photoshop Elements Wikipedia pages are being redirected to Adobe Photoshop page, which is wrong, as Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Photoshop Elements are two different products. Please stop reverting the changes.

Also, I was not part of any AfD discussion so feel free to invite me next time.I came here because of user complaints.

Here are two product pages for your reference:

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements.html

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop.html Sharmavikas2k (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it's irrelevant. There was a discussion, which you took part in, although you were not signed in, which resulted in the article being merged. Your actions are disruptive. Please desist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I never took part in any such discussion but would love to. For now,please stop redirecting the page. What you are doing is wrong and I am not sure why you are doing it and how it is helping you. I am forwarding this incident to Adobe for the required action and to get this sorted with Wikipedia Admins. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I saw that you got confused with the IP address.Please contact me if you need any information about Adobe Photoshop Elements and how it is different from Photoshop. I know your intentions are good and you want to help users so let`s try to handle it in calm an amicable manner. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, Thanks for the addition of a maintenance template on the

) 11:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow. I haven't touched that article in years. Absolutely those tags can be removed, and I have done so. Excellent job on the article. Keep it up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your consideration and your warm encouragement. Nwidmer (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I've been trying to create a new Wikipedia page. I've used references but it has been removed for the second time. I'm not understanding what I'm not doing correctly. Not sure how I can see if it was you or another user but if it was you, could you please explain what the reason is for deleting the page

) 12:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Because you have a COI or UPE issue. Please read

WP:Articles for Creation to create an article. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources provided.

You tagged 2023 Southeastern Conference softball season for relying excessively on references to primary sources. There were other sources embedded in templates that were not encoded as references. Those templates have been around for no telling how long, or copied and modified, from templates that have been around for no telling how long. I encoded them as references. As I see it, the primary source references that are used, do not have interpretations that would require any additional secondary sourcing, Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. If that is okay, I will take it upon myself to change those, and others like those, templates, that I am aware of, in the same fashion. It may take some time. Jay Jor (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Using only primary sources does not satisfy the need for secondary sources to establish notability. I saw the 5 footnotes, and the two embedded in the record table (which seem to simply be duplicates of footnotes 4 and 5). Those are fine for taking care of

verifiability, but they do not go to notability. Did I miss any others? You don't have to change any of the existing ones, simply supply secondary sources which show the season is notable. I'm sure it is, but unfortunately other editors might not take my word for it. Let me know when you do so I can have another look and mark it reviewed. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

16:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

One of the sources is the NCAA, the most prominent college sports association in the U.S., another is a poll covered by USA Today with the National Fastpitch Coaches Association as the source, and another is ESPN, yet another prominent, reputable source for college sports, in addition to the Southeastern Conference sources, a prominent college sports conference. Women's sports don't get the coverage of men's sports but that is no reason to prevent attempts at providing more information about them. If you don't think that notability is shown, then I am not sure what would. By all means have it, and other articles that are very similar, deleted. There are many, most of which I did not create, and I had been planning on putting some additional effort into them and even creating more. Please let me know what you are going to do in a timely fashion, so that I can make a decision whether to continue putting effort into it, or not. Jay Jor (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear @

16:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. Thanks for the explanation. Different folks and all that. Thanks for your efforts on the project. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel. Sorry to bother you, but I didn't know who else to ask. I noticed that a user created this external link template. Is it fine to keep this kind of templates or should it be deleted? Xexerss (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but I have no clue. You might ask an admin like Barkeep49? Or leave a question at the Teahouse. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Onel5969 -- I'm wondering if I could trouble you to patrol an article I just created. The reason I'm getting in touch is because the article is Anderson Clayton, which formerly was a redirect created 10 years ago for no reason that I could find. So I replaced the redirect with the contents of the article on this person, who I believe is recently notable. But I think that since I edited a redirect, it wouldn't get surfaced in NewPagesFeed to be patrolled, right? Thank you, and please let me know if I'm misunderstanding how it all works! Cloud atlas (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with it. Marked it as reviewed. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I have added content to the article and stub in order to expand. Chacha igbokwe (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was closed abruptly without reaching consensus, by sheer monopoly and manipulation and undemocratic, and un constructive means, and being from America how do you know the notability of Indian articles ? and directors? dont rub your personal opinions on Indian articles. @User:Star Mississippi billed it as consensus reached to delete and closed it, this is sheer manipulation. why should i take all the pain and go for deletion review, when the closure has not reached consensus, and when the closure was not done democratically, so open new afd on Subhodayam. Fostera12 (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Because DRV is your only option. If you continue to revert the redirect I can almost guarantee you will get blocked. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

ANSWER ME FIRST ? HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY @User:Star Mississippi WHO billed it as consensus reached while all the 95% votes were to retain the article, OPEN THE NEW AFD Subhodayam. or I will make sure you will be blocked through arbitration committee for manipulating the process for your personal reasons stupidity wasting everybody's time here.Fostera12 (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote, that's why we use !vote to denote what is happening at an AfD discussion. The keep votes were not based in policy (despite your voting 5 times). The !votes gave a clear consensus to delete/redirect.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Another 100 people voted to keep the article, THE VOTES GAVE A CLEAR CONSENSUS ON RETAINING THE ARTICLE. THIS IS YOUR CREATED NONSENSE. YOU MANIPULATE THE PROCESS AND POLICIES IN PLACE FOR YOUR PERSONAL REASONS? YOU OPEN NEW AFD THIS IS CLEAR ABUSE AND ATTACK ON THE INDIAN EDITORS AND ARTICLES AND SOURCES. PROMOTING YOURSELF AS A MINDLESS DELETIONIST AND KEEP ON ABUSING ARTICLES, AND DELETING ARTICLES FOR SILLY SOURCES. THERE ARE A 100 INDEPENDENT SOURCES IN THAT ARTICLE, CANT YOU SEE. WHY ARE YOU ABUSING WIKIPEDIA LIKE THIS. OPEN A NEW AFD OR I WILL TAKE THIS ISSUE TO ARBITRATION COMMITTE. Fostera12 (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

No, there was a consensus made to redirect it, even if that wassn't a majority !vote. AfD doesn't work on votes - it works on consensus. Arguments based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines carry more weight than arguments that aren't. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to bother but, I need sources for the nominees from 1998-2001, 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2010. I might need a little help with finding those. Also how do you think progress is going so far? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Give me a day or two as RL is getting hectic. If I don't get back to you by Friday, ping me again to give me nudge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Merry April Fools! Also, it’s after Friday so, again I need help with finding sources for 1998-2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2010. How do you think progress is going so far? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is one for 2000.[5] (although it says Pokemon instead of Pokemon Yellow) Timur9008 (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello? Are you still there? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- could you please provide me to links to those pages? I can't find them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Fine, here you go

Draft: Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Video Game. Nostalgia Zone (talk

) 13:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. I've submitted it, but the redirect is preventing moving into mainspace. I've requested that the redirect be deleted, once that is done, I can accept it to mainspace. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

In other words, I don't need to find the other sources, right? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, yes, that's correct. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

) 22:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Onel5969. I see you previously flagged this article as 'Orphan', but since then, much work has been done to link from other articles that refer to the subject, with numerous citations to newspaper articles and other sources that name him directly, and others that can be easily verified. Have you drilled down to all these and checked them out? One example is his LGBT+ activism covered in the article on Virginia Chadwick. Apart from yours, there has been only one other contest as to copyvio, and that was reversed. The first two citations in the Derek Williams (musician) article are to full-page newspaper articles on the subject, with photographs of him. I have just now added four more citations, but note that my previous draft was rejected in part because of an excessive number of citations. Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC+10)

Moved this to talk page. Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2023 (AEDT)

Hey mate, I saw the other day you reviewed ~20 redirect pages that I created. Thank you! I was wondering if it would be possible to review this redirect?

) 17:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. No worries on the reviews. That's kind of what I do. But I'm not sure what you're asking here. Another reviewer has already marked that redirect reviewed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969, Thanks for reviewing my article

) 06:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)