User talk:Onel5969/Archive 113

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 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

→

Archive 120

Archive 113: April 2023

Hello @

) 01:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. That discussion should have been had on the talk page of the article, but I see why you would go ahead and make the split. However, when doing splits, please be sure to give attribution to the article being split from in the edit summary. That's important as per WP policy. Feel free to revert my edit, but please, provide attribution. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969 thanks for letting me know. I have absolutely no idea how to revert an edit, so could you please do it for me? Once you've done it I'll add a link to the talk page to the discussion page. HoHo3143 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this, but it looks like the issue's been resolved. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I suspect there are several accounts as sockpuppets, and I’m not sure how to report for investigations. Worldgiant (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The place to report suspected sockpuppets is

WP:SPI. It gives directions there on what to do. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

22:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good day @Onel5969! Need your help in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Khambakhadov_Saifullah You have previously used some serious mistakes that I made while installing this article. I ask you to check and change the status of the pack in the publication, due to the fact that I am making amendments User:Alterbulat

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Igor Kogan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4: not a repost - deleted article was userfied to User:ЖуковАФ/Igor Kogan. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Charlson Comorbidity Index, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G12: source copied content from Wikipedia. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. with no copyvio, the article looks good to go. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear colleague! Recently you reverted my attempt to write a minimal text for

) 18:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Lists of Star Wars cast members (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G14 "Lists of Star Wars cast members" (plural) is not ambiguous

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

) 11:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Saffron Barker

Hello Onel5969, I hope you're well.

I have noticed that you have redirected Saffron Barker's entry back to The Celebrity Circle.

However, I feel this was rather quick, and I seen nothing to suggest she was not notable. I understand the previous discussions from 2019 and 2021 as these were poorly-sourced with about 11 not very strong sources in the past, but that's why I created a new entry which took about five days, had over 100 sources - most of which were from notable publications - and a Creative Commons photo made public by a notable gymwear brand she has worked with.

I'm sure you'll understand my confusions for the redirect, especially as their was not even a discussion for Article for Deletion or redirect, and it had probably only been up for less than 10 hours in total.

Please can you explain if it would be possible for

a) It to go back up once again? and b) Why the decision was made?

I understand that this is probably the most detailed the page ever was, judging from its history.

I look forward to hearing back from you, and my frustrations are not with you yourself, just the article's sudden disappearance.

Best wishes, Mechanical Elephant (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: I understand that Ponyo was the person who originally semi-protected the page, and that is why you redirected, as they had said leave it as that. I will check with them on the consensus of restoring the article or leaving it a redirect. Have a great day! :)

--Mechanical Elephant (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries, but it's not about the volume of the citations, but on their quality: reliability, whether or not they have significant coverage, and whether or not they are independent. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that Wledig doesn't meet

. What I don't agree with is your decision to undo my edits and restore the redirect to only one of the articles about people (historical and mythological) that the title was applied to. It doesn't make sense and it's misinforming people.

Why didn't you flag the article for deletion instead, which would be much easier for you to do than it is for me? It's what I wanted to do in the first place, but I realized it would be far easier to add content to the article than flag it for deletion. Which is a problem from my point of view, but I suppose it's probably been made deliberately cumbersome to thwart bad faith actors. 24.17.40.164 (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't flag it for deletion because it's a valid redirect, as the target mentions it. But I understand your point. Are there any other sources than the footnotes #1 and #4 at the Cunedda article? If there were at least one more, a nice little stub article could be made. If you know of one, let me know and I'll create the stub. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I copied the first paragraph of my edit and the source footnote to a page of a print Welsh historical dictionary directly from Amlawdd Wledig. I found the same dictionary (there's a Wikipedia article about it at Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru) online and it contains the exact text quoted in the Amlawdd article. I don't see a way to link directly to the definition, but if you go to https://welsh-dictionary.ac.uk/gpc/gpc.html and search for "wledig," then click the second definition the text is there. So there's a third reference and you can take your pick as to whether you want the print one or the online one.

For what it's worth I don't speak Welsh and my interest in this is strictly from doing a couple years of research for a novel I'm not writing. 24.17.40.164 (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll work on it in the next day or so. I think there's enough here for a stub. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, fleshed out the stub. Let me know what you think. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty good. I went ahead and made some edits which I'll explain here.

"Maxen" is a alternative spelling of "Macsen" that I rarely see so I switched it. And it's not that Macsen Wledig is sometimes confused with Magnus Maximus — they are very much one and the same person although his historical role in Welsh and Breton history blurs into myth.

"Emrys Wledig" is much better known as Ambrosius Aurelianus, who appears to be historical although again exists in mythology as well. (Both the Old Welsh "Emrys" and the Latin "Ambrosius" mean "immortal". In some stories Ambrosisus Aurelianus is conflated with "Myrrdin Emrys" who is conflated with the wizard Merlin of Aurthurian legend. It's all a messy hodgepodge.)

And last, I linked the Red Book of Hergest to the article on it. I also corrected the spelling of "Hergest" which you had as "Herges," although it pained me to do it because that would imply a connection between the earliest Arthurian stories to the world of Tintin and I very much like the idea of Captain Haddock roaming around Post-Roman Britain, yelling "Blistering Blue Barnacles!" at the Saxons and the Picts. 24.17.40.164 (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello One15969, thanks for having a look at the article I created a few days ago. I noticed a tag pertaining to notability had been placed on the article, From what I understand it seems the article is not supported by sufficient amount of sources to allow it to meet the notability standard. However, I have seen articles on wikipedia with even fewer sources that are live on the mainspace. Also, do you know of any other platform I can cite for reliable sources concerning the subject. I am running low on options, any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading through Elvis7077 (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

If you would link to the article, I'll have another look at it. But

WP:OSE, is a common thing. WP is run by volunteers, and so, over the years, there are tons of articles still on WP who would not meet notability criteria. But if you provide a link, I can be more specific about your particular article. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

11:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, you responded sooner than I expected. In any case I appreciate you taking the time to interact with me. I'm basically a beginner here and may not fully understand certain norms here on wikipedia. Your guidance is most welcome, Here is the link to the article (click me). I would still like to improve and bring it up to standard if I can. Elvis7077 (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Okay, so the main guide to notability is

WP:NSCHOLAR

. And then only in limited cases. For example, you'll see many articles for sub-national politicians with only a source or two, but because they were a member of a state legislature (in the U.S.) for example. But a mayor, even of a large city, must still pass GNG. For GEOLAND, if there is census data on a populated place, that census will suffice. NSCHOLAR is a bit more complex, but if they qualify through one of the 8 factors, then they do not have to pass GNG.

So, all that being said, let's take a look at your article. The first reference, while in-depth, is from an organization he is affiliated with, therefore it is a primary source, and does not go to notability. The second one is of okay depth of coverage, but it is a simple routine announcement of a business posting. The 3rd link does not go to an actual article, so the quality of the source can't be assessed. The 4th is another regurgitated press release of the announcement of his appointment. I actually accessed the third source through a google search, and fixed the link in the article. Sources like this are problematic, if you look at the language of his section of the article, it is obvious that the language was provided by someone associated with the professor. So with the current sourcing, imho, they do not pass

WP:GNG

.

Regarding

WP:NSCHOLAR, with the information in the article, I can't see him meeting any of the 8 criteria. His Google Scholar

profile gives him a 10 for his h-Index, which is not very high at all. A couple of his articles, "Factors influencing the adoption of cloud computing by small and medium enterprises in developing economies" and "Phishing, SMiShing & Vishing: an assessment of threats against mobile devices" get a decent number of citation counts, but he is a co-author of both, so I think he doesn't quite meet notability there, either.

I'm going to ping a very experienced editor who is quite knowledgeable in academic articles to see if they have anything to add (or conversely to tell me I'm dead wrong): Hey David Eppstein, would you mind chiming in here if there's anything I missed? Thanks in advance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Both of the articles I wrote were returned to draft by you ruthlessly, which I cannot understand. I hope you can give me a reasonable explanation. Exceptionally, there are two lists that are very poorly written and can pass. My writing is at least better than those two and you rejected it. Just like

10:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Please be careful of personal attacks. It could lead to you getting blocked.

WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

14:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Request Review artical

Dear sir please review artcial ‘’Ahvar Rizv’’ that it can be indexed. thanks Mpsaharan8 (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The coverage on Narayan Apte is in-depth. See the sources I provided. This book has dozens of pages dedicated to him. Then there is this, this and more. This new book also has details about him.

We also have articles on criminals involved in the same murder that are not known for anything else. See Gopal Godse and Nathuram Godse. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you very much for tirelessly adding categories to my raw redirections. Now you let me know about User:Wugapodes/Capricorn, so next time, I'll improve them at the first stage. Julthep (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Yes, Capricorn does make it so much easier to add rcats. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've just waded through the lengthy thread on ANI, and got a sense of deja-vu. It doesn't look like there's going to be a consensus for any sort of sanctions, but can I just offer a bit of advice? If you do triage and decide to draftily or redirect an article, and that gets reverted, simply start a procedural AfD and then walk away from it. Having a look through my own contributions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Newborn Society looks like an example of doing this. Above all, please just avoid the temptation to snap back and respond in kind - it doesn't work. Be the editor that can't be baited. Of course, I haven't exactly been a saint in this regard myself, but that doesn't mean it's not good advice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated advice. I do try to stay away from ANI discussions, and I stay away from most AfD noms after I send them there. Sometimes, I do add comments, when there are flyby "Keeps", which have no bearing on the policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

14:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I always do. Might I suggest you do the same? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I concur. As a neutral observer, without any diff or context as to where Onel allegedly assumed bad faith on you, I wouldn't advocate any action. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Haiti at the 2023 Pan American Games. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234, edit warring over notability tags for an article about a sub-event of a future event not scheduled to take place for 6 months reflects worse on you than it does on Onel. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is not a "sub-event". Nation articles at x event are generally deemed notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue here is less the question of whether it's notable or not (although per

WP:CRYSTAL the argument for notability will always be shaky this far in advance of the event) and more that you are 1) edit warring against two editors and 2) had the gall to place a template warning on their page while doing so. Start a discussion on the talk page and work towards establishing notability, that's the correct way to move forward from here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk

16:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Rucker School

Typically high schools are always considered to be notable, why was this moved to draft space?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Holcombe_L_Rucker_School_of_Community_Research

BlackAmerican (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That standard was deprecated a few years ago. High schools must pass

WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

08:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES talks about the 2017 RFC that changed the standard, if you're interested. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 10:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Rugby league articles

Thank you for your recent interest in editing rugby league articles on Wikipedia. I invite you to join the Rugby League WikiProject where you might be able to make positive and constructive edits to improve rugby league articles here on Wikipedia.

You might also like to list which articles you have proded and have sent to drafts so that Project participants and regular rugby league editors could intervene and expand articles, which do not fit your particular interpretation of

) 05:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Further: Hi Onel5969! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Storm machine (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I never mark any of my edits as minor edits manually. If one of my edits was marked as minor, it was done through the app (like AWB) that I was using, which is rarely incorrect. Next time, it might be nice to include a link to the example your referring to. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 12:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I see you've asked for speedy deletion of the page. Please, would you take some time to have a look at my message on the TP (and at the page itself) to see if you would not consider that your request is not really necessary and that the page can be kept. As it is, the film is notable and the page, certainly not perfect, is a rather good start. I understand the guidelines you're trying to respect but in that very case, we would spare some time and energy if we decided we can keep the page. Thank you in advance. — MY, OH, MY! 14:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, I have declined this speedy. It is an easy check to see that since the article was restored, there has been a significant amount of sourced prose added. If you feel the new sources aren't up to snuff it can go to AfD again, but a small amount of history checking shows that it should not have been nominated for G4. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi 78.26, I looked at the history and was really not sure what was going on, so I felt that it was best if someone who could look at the deleted version (since I was unsure this was a reversal of the deletion - didn't understand that from the edit summary, which appeared to indicate that the article had simply been recreated, and you had moved it to userspace), could make that judgement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, if it helps you can view from the logs that I restored the page on 00:17, 30 March 2023, then moved to userspace at 00:20, 30 March 2023‎. If it had been moved back to mainspace with no improvements at this point your action would have been entirely correct. The editing history shows significant additions at 22:09, 30 March 2023‎ and 22:16, 30 March 2023‎, so this is something you can check without needing access to the deleted version. I hope that is useful. Happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain why the five sources I outlined here do not in your view constitute significant coverage of the subject. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I would appreciate to be informed on why did the 2022 Pan American Archery Championships got removed due to "not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass" when the other Pan American Archery Championships that have pages got the same amount of coverage. Would the other ones should be removed as well? These are international, federated, sanctioned championships with olympian athletes. What to we have to do to be able to keep them on? Would YouTube video coverage of the events suffice? Thanks in advance. XKuei (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see

WP:OSE. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

20:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes on cricketers

Hi. Just a quick note! When creating articles and using Template:Infobox cricketer, please can you ensure it is all filled out when you create an article. So all format stats should be in it, then if possible, placed on your watchlist to update as and when they play. Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I never create cricket articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

What’s your opinion on this page

and what do you suggest I add to make it standard.

Thanks!Vector diehard (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. First, get rid of the imdb refs, it's not a reliable source. A lot of the sourcing in your draft is questionable notability, or unreliable sources. The best sources from Nigeria are: The Guardian, The Nation, Premium Times, The Punch, Silverbird TV, The Sun, Vanguard, and The Voice. And many of the sources are not in-depth coverage. Right now, I'd be on the fence as to whether or not it passes notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your extraordinary efforts to enforce the importance of WP:BURDEN and your diligence at AfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. All I can do is try. Sometimes I feel like that proverbial guy with his finger in the dyke. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It can be difficult to edit sometimes when it feels like you have so many people against you. Just try to remember what Wikipedia would be like without your contributions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Thank for your advices. Unfortunately, I have not other sources for. Dr. Džino, nor I have time to search them. I know his academic work and I believe it is worth to be mentioned. Anyway, maybe some other person, in Australia or in Croatia, should find sources and time. Besides of that, your advices are useful. Maybe for another biography. Have a good time. --Inoslav Bešker (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your advices. Inoslav Bešker (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear what the issue is with my article. UK local government elections are covered every year on wiki with a breakdown of the results for every council.

2023 UK Local Government elections (also see previous years) South Hams District Council elections Drams707 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that should be 2023 United Kingdom local elections Drams707 (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Because there are zero sources from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Regarding other elections, please see

WP:OSE. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

20:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what has happened to the article on thw "2023 South Hams District Council election"? Its sources included the local authority itself, the UK Government and the BBC. If those aren't cast iron sources I really don't know what are! Will you be doing the same to all the articles on previous elections in South Hams and indeed other UK local elections being held in 2023? Drams707 (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't Worry I'll add some secondary sources for you. Wikieditor019 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is notable as all other City of Wolverhampton Council elections have Wikipedia articles. More sources will be added once the election takes place. For example, from local government websites showing the results. I have also added New citations that are independent so should now be notable. Wikieditor019 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Just curious as to why you added the notability thing to the top? Any specific reason? Did you look at the references/sources or just add it without looking at them? Why are they not valid enough? –ACase0000 (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Because there was no official source showing it was a legally populated place. Absent that, you need in-depth coverage, which was lacking. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the USGS an official enough source? –ACase0000 (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Not anymore. It used to be, but was deprecated back in 2019-20 sometime. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel. Please trust that this is meant purely as friendly advice, and not at all as criticism. It might be best to avoid emotional language in AFD discussions, because I don't think it helps the arguments.

The situation with redirects does seem quite ridiculous, so I appreciate why you are frustrated by it all. Thanks for all your work with the NPP reviews, you're doing a great job as always. All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I try not not to. And thanks for the comment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you are very well. I see that you have reviewed many of my articles, especially new pages. I wanted to ask your help with some that you reviewed that are now being evaluated for deletion. I will name a few here (

) 03:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. What you are doing is called

WP:CANVASSING, which is definitely frowned upon. However, what I will say is that I feel that both of these are borderline notability, which is why I marked them reviewed. I always try to give editors the benefit of the doubt. What you can do, is provide more in-depth sourcing, and add it to the article, this would bolster your argument for keeping them. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

16:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I had not read your message. I didn't flag it to notify me. Thank you very much, I didn't know that this was frowned upon, I thought that asking another creator for help was the normal way. Well, I'll do that, more references. Thank you. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969,

Hope all is well. Thanks for checking

) 12:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice job. And thanks for letting me know. Although that was unnecessary. Once an article is de-orphaned, all you have to do is remove the tag. An orphan tag is not a sign that an article is deficient, but a heads up to other editors to see if they can tie it to other articles in the encyclopedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

hey, a month later now lol - asking you to review my article which you draftspaced over a month ago

) 14:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

But there are clear indications you have some association with the center. Can you explain your relationship? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I have contacted some of the schools (usually the students attending the schools in order to get insight for the portion regarding academic life, and using that in addition to information from external references.) and that's as far as the relationship goes, this is not just one school I am working on writing about - but several, I was not asked by any of these schools and NGOs to write this and am well aware that I should disclose whether I was paid or am employed by them to do so. I felt like the reasoning behind this was a misunderstanding and can get why it would be, but again - this is not just this specific centre i'm writing about - but several, such as African Hope LC, St Andrew's Refugee Services, Jusoor's Refugee Education program in Lebanon, and more! I hope you understand now, and hope you can help move it to mainspace. If needed, I will state this limited contact stated above on the talk page of either my user or the article in question. Ballads2110 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

with this, would it be possible for you to move the article into mainspace? Ballads2110 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969! I want to thank you for reviewing my article pf L.A. Burdick and wanted to know if you have any advice for me regarding my article or why you made the edits you decided to make. Want to make sure I keep improving!

Thanks again,

Anabella B Anabellakb (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is a nice start class article. Curious though, I didn't really edit the article. I simply added the short description. The edits made on the article were by 3 other editors, as well as your event coordinator. Some of the edits were

WP:MOS edits (in terms of capitalization in section headers, etc.). But I think it's in nice shape for a start-level article. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

21:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

TV5 HD

I have added 1 new source since you tagged the article. Does it pass the notability guidelines or not yet? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. This is most likely notable. However, right now, there are zero in-depth references about the channel. This is an issue many editors run into when attempting to source articles. It's called

WP:CHURNALISM. What you have in the article are 3 sources. But they are all the same regurgitated press release. This one is quite easy to spot, since they didn't bother to alter the press release at all. But usually they will simply cut and paste large chunks around a sentence or two. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

21:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This article does not meet

) 00:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't see this. 2402:3A80:1E04:7B2E:EEC9:DCA5:4673:4916 (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NFILM. 2402:3A80:1E0A:ACF0:423D:5B54:3834:AF5B (talk

) 11:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I've draftified both. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Julian-Rivero.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mascherato, 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/Mascherato 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 April 2023 (UTC)

That line won't escape my head thanks to your edit summaries. :P LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Left you a message on my user page.

Thanks and God bless!

17:14, April 11, 2023 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you!!! JohnDVandevert (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I've taken a look at Nazara TV as it is mostly created by a now blocked sock-puppet (and I'm about 99.9% sure the IPv6 editor is also a sock, but I doubt an admin would go for a G5 without more effect than I care to put forth). Nearly all of the refs were basically a press-release regurgitated, and the one that wasn't is pretty basic. I'm tempted to push back to draft, but since you accepted it, thought I'd reach out for some input. Ravensfire (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

By all means, draftify it. It was a shaky "reviewed" on my part. But, contrary to popular belief, I try to give every benefit of the doubt to articles. But I agree with your assessment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

On second thought... G5 it. If you do not wish to, I will. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

My initial look at it when it first went up was iffy, but give the benefit of the doubt. Once they were sock-blocked, I looked deeper, and found all of the sources basically the same, but slightly re-arranged. The phrasing started to look more and more like a press-release as well. It's tagged as G5 now. I'm pretty sure this person is a paid editor for a network or two. Ravensfire (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice catch. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

At article Monument to Minin and Pozharsky, Nizhny Novgorod, you [1] it for speedy deletion as a copyvio but the given URL has no overlap at all. I've declined it, but if you meant a different URL, then please provide it as the given source bears no resemblance to the article at all. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Whpq. No, I meant that one. I'm getting a 71% match on earwig. I thought about removing the copyvio and doing a revdel, but it's so pervasive... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you check again. I get 0% on earwig, and when I look at the given URL, it is just general instructions for contributors on how what/how to write stuff for a destination. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi again Whpq. This is the link to the page, and I'm still getting that 71% copyvio, and looking at the text of the source and comparing to the article, the earwig report is spot on. Weird. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The link you just provided is not the link that you provided when you tagged the page as a copyright violation. Now that I can examine the correct web page, my assessment is that there is no copyright violation. The web site in question appears to be one that is built on user contributions. The enwiki article is a translation of the corresponding ruwiki article and acknowledges as such in the edit summary on creation. The web site appears to have copied and translated the ruwiki article or possible the enwiki article. -- Whpq (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. Thanks for clearing it up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it's ok to remove the "notability" template from this page now? Thank you. Jim Killock (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Here's the issue: for academics, there are two main ways to qualify for an article: 1 - meet

WP:NACADEMIC, and I do not see him meeting any of the 8 criteria for that. The closest one would be #3, due to the Academia Latinitati Fovendae fellowship. But I'm not sure that would qualify. He's certainly accomplished. I am going to ping another editor who is brilliant at assessing scholar articles, David Eppstein, and see if they wish to opine. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, ok. That is confusing re "interviews"; these are published pieces in academic journals, even if they aren't peer reviewed that is a bit more than "primary" I would have thought. In any case "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" ought to apply, as he's had such a big impact on the teaching of Latin, spoken Latin and output of Latin translations of well known children's books and the like. Jim Killock (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

From their list of fellowship (https://academialatinitatifovendae.com/sodales) they seem to have multiple levels of fellowship, of which Tunberg's is not the highest and most honorary, so even if this counted as a major academic society (dubious) I think the case for

WP:PROF#C3

is weak.

On the other hand, he is the translator of at least three popular children's books into Latin (

WP:AUTHOR-based notability. —David Eppstein (talk

) 15:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks both, I'll work on that :) Jim Killock (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to ping me after you finish making your changes and I'll take another look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - that's done - please do review - and thanks again for engaging both of you. Jim Killock (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

As always, thank you David. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I see that you've tagged Minn for lack of notability. Twice. I feel that if the co-founder of AAA has a page (Kazu Iijima), then Minn should have one, too. I do plan to set up a page for the AAA, so perhaps at some point we could merge the three together.

Windsong0425 (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I see now that you have reverted Minn to draft. There is little more I can add to this page. What do you want me to do? (I am fairly new to all this.) You have not responded to my initial query. In the meantime I have set up a page for the Triple A. Shall I add Minn's bio to that? And Kazu's? Again, I don't find it fair for Kazu to have a page and Minn not. They were co-founders of the AAA. --Windsong0425 (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't respond to your above statements because they were statements, I did not think you were asking anything. Couple of things, first, since you're new to WP, when you leave a message, please link to the articles your are talking about, like this:

Draft:Minn Matsuda. I looked at each reference in your draft, and I didn't find any in-depth coverage of Matsuda. However, there does appear to be in-depth coverage of Iijima. I did an internet search and could not find any in-depth coverage of Matsuda either. That does not mean there isn't any, just that I couldn't find any. I did find enough in-depth coverage of Asian Americans for Action (on Google News and Google Books). I think that it would be easy to develop an article on that, and add a section on the two founders, where you could include the information about Matsuda. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

14:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I did set up a page for Asians Americans for Action which has been accepted. I can add a section about the founders. I agree that there is more written about Kazu than about Minn, perhaps because her family was more involved in the movement. I will continue to search for more references for Minn. Windsong0425 (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Asian Americans for Action. Sorry, my first link attempt was misspelled and for some reason I can't remove it. Windsong0425 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedian, I've linked the Waste management to the Leaf_Bank page. Please check it and if you think it is sufficient then please remove this orphan tag. Thank you Snyjhon (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedian, I have removed the orphan tag from this article, as I have introduced links to this page from related articles and lists. I hope this is sufficient. Thank you very much for taking your valuable time to review this page. Snyjhon (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969,

I'm trying to cleanup edits by Yaujj13 made recently. As I said in User talk:Yaujj13, he inserted inappropriate content directly to many articles.

Editors not interested in these articles are usually not aware of the problem at the first time and try to wikify his content. They may think minor fixes are enough, such as

made reverts to my restoration before he made self-reverts to withdraw his decision. Where can I ask for a consensus on his edits across several articles?

Best regards,

) 14:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

They were not "off-topic", they were definitely about the Moro Rebellion, just badly placed and not well-constructed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, this could be construed as

WP:CANVASSING. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 14:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm asking for a way to reach consensus. That's definitely not

talk

) 14:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about not replying yesterday. There are really only two ways to deal with editors you disagree with, either on talk pages, or if you feel their behavior (not content disputes) is egregious, you can report them at ANI. Right now, I would simply continue to interact with the editor on their talk page. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, One15969,

Thanks for your reviewing of my newly created article Russian Fishing 4, I really appreciate your time and patience! Regarding your concern about the notability of the topic, I had made some amendments to the article and here are some of my clarifications:

1) I have added several media coverage citations about the game in the "Reception" section, which could prove the credential of the topic as being important and relevant enough. 2) There is already a wikipage about the same topic in German, as the game itself is not only popular in the English world, but also (or more) so in many other parts of the world.

Thank you again for your efforts and I look forward to hearing from you again!

) 14:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, definitely meets GNG now. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion

, because it is a disambiguation page which either

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

Under the

.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Why has the article been redirected to the council page. It deserves to have its own page as all the other England 2023 local elections do. Please tell me why you did this. Wikieditor019 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

As explained in the edit summary, there is not enough in-depth coverage to show it meets notability guidelines. As in zero, in-depth coverage. No subject "deserves" its own page, each subject must meet

WP:TOOSOON. Can be recreated as soon as in-depth coverage from several independent sources is available. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Could I revert your edits and move the page to a draft so I can edit it as more info becomes available? Wikieditor019 (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Or I could do that for you. Whatever you prefer. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll do that now. Wikieditor019 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you please advise me why this article does not meet notability standards when previous Tewkesbury elections have.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tewkesbury_Borough_Council_elections

Furthermore articles on all the individual UK authority local elections are included in Wikipedia on an annual basis. Why is this Council different? Drams707 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see above answer. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You have tagged this article for {{

) 18:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

How do i resolve the issue im asking you to do much , just tell me how i can sort the darts stuff 82.4.151.162 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You can stop socking, JRR, and accept your ban. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your concerns with regards to Siena Saints softball. However, I was working to establish more notability and add secondary sources (the history section, which was incomplete before my updates were reverted, was the section I was going to find sourcing for.) I was finished for the night yesterday and planned on adding to the article more later today. I ask for a little leniency as its a work in progress for me in collaboration with Wikipedia:WikiProject Softball/College softball task force. Siena is a bit more difficult to find notability from other pages I've worked on but I believe I can find the sourcing necessary - I just had not done that yet. Mannytool (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries, in the future, when you're going to be working on article you can do it in draft space or put an {{under construction}} tag at the top while you're working on it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969: re: Draft:David Gritten and David Gritten :

"Gritten, David" OR "David Gritten" has 297 prior citations in wikipedia. He is the author of three books. The article has sufficient third-party citations. It qualifies for stub status. ....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

That's actually not a qualification towards notability. And he's the author of one book, and the co-author of two others. That might be a claim under NAUTHOR, but that is not shown in the draft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969, since you've added a notability tag for Puspashree Pattnaik, I wanted to provide a bit of context.

• There are currently six references and not a single one is from the organization she founded. Furthermore, three are from the public sources in India, i.e. government entities/subsidiaries, one is from a non-profit that is not hers and a project that was collaboratively done by multiple stakeholders, another one is from a US government-led study and then finally one from a US public university publication. Which of these sources might seem less notable?
• Most notable women from India that contribute in several Indian languages often are widely covered in those language media. Puspashree Pattnaik is no exception. But most notable media don't have a proper archiving and are not always archived on the Internet Archived. When they are even archived, searching is impossible because online-papers are not text but images. I or anyone else doesn't have an easy way to cite.
• Since Pattnaik's contributions are in Odia, there is no easy way to find more tertiary and above references to cite.
• Lastly, she is a key interviewee (actor) in a film that is archived at the Library of Congress (https://lccn.loc.gov/2020512175). Since, I am the director of that film I did not want to add that myself to flag any kind of unnecessary red flag. Additionally, the film has an EIDR record (https://ui.eidr.org/view/content?id=10.5240/D926-0610-5EAA-FA7E-F91D-9) and both these sources are notable enough. That said, I am neither related or a part of Srujanika, the nonprofit Pattnaik founded, or its board. I created the film to document their work purely out of pocket.

I think we as a community need an equitable lens. India has over 700 languages. English is used officially only federally and in some states (provinces). How can one possibly rely only on English sources. And when we even do, how can one possibly find equal number of references for an American (or another cash- and media-dominant country) author and an Indian one. There is no ground for comparison. I hope you'd assume good faith and help. Psubhashish (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I find it quite remarkable that Prof.Dr. Mamadou Diawara, a German ethnologist of Malian origin and Corresponding Member of the British Academy does not meet the criteria of "notability" according to Wikipedia administrator Onel5969. Dirk-Franz (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like this deletion to be reversed by an administrator per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Lord Milner (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear reviewer, I received a message that you had reviewed the new page on the post-vac syndrome and thought that it was accepted. Unfortunately, someone (Buidhe) has removed the page. Could you please help or undo this edit by Buidhe? Buidhe also deleted the text on the Post-vac syndrome Paul Ehrlich Institute, so the link has been undone. I know the Post-Vac syndrome is a sensitive subject, but there is nothing in the text which could be a reason to reject the content. I have written it very carefully so as not to get involved in any political discussion. But it surely has encyclopedic value? I am looking forward to your reaction and/or help. Hanengerda Hanengerda (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Buidhe is a very experienced and quite good editor. While I do not necessarily agree with the redirect, I understand their point in doing so. When I marked it reviewed, I felt that it met the bare minimum for notability, but I can certainly see the argument for redirecting. You might want to discuss it with them on their talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I note that you drafted these two a few months ago at Draft:Ghaith Ouahabi and Draft:Malek Mehri. Today, they has been copied and pasted with no changes and placed into mainspace... This usually counts as a contested draftify. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969,

I hope all is well, first off, I would like to say that I really admire your work and hope that one day I would get to these levels.

I currently just started and I am learning everyday from people like you.

There’s an active that you have just reviewed and I would like you to help me make it bwtter instead of deletion. This article is AirDee. The previous ones have been deleted due to the fact that they were being confused with the “ArrDee” from UK. I would like you to help me make this page better so I could one day be like you and other best Wiki-Gurus.

Thank you. PenJuluka (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

1. I didn't create the article.
2. Mediaset is one of the most influential private broadcasting companies in Italy, so the subject is notable enough.
3. I'll try to bring more sources and more editors into the article, but could you please bring the Mediaset page back to the main namespace?

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I knew you didn't create the article, that was done by an ip. But you were the one who did most of the work on it, so as a courtesy, I thought I would let you know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do not delete my page. I spent hours and hours creating it. I did not plagiarize and no one paid me to do it. I referenced everything. I don't understand what I did wrong. Bigcurl254 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious- what was your reason for blanking and redirecting this page only to undo that a minute later? SurferSquall (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Because when you split the article, you did not provide proper attribution as per

WP:SPLIT. So I restored the redirect, and then self-reverted in order to provide that attribution for you. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

01:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. SurferSquall (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I saw that you moved two related split article to draft space. You may not have realized that these two articles were split from the original Payzone which had the same content for several years. I came across it when reviewing finance project article and split the contents into the two new pages as they clearly did not fit into one article. Moving them to draft space is not helpful as it leaves the disam page adrift and content lost that has been on Wikipedia for a number of years. A better solution would be to tag it or mark it for deletion which would bring attention to it. I have no knowledge about these companies and would not be able to improve the references. Can you please review this again and see if you can find a better solution. Sargdub (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll look at it again today, for now, I've restored the original article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello again? I wasn't understanding much about

) 09:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Help

Hello, Onel5969 ! Can you help me? I can't move this page Kharadze, Koba to another space, i mean Koba Kharadze. - OTOGI ^Messages 11:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I moved it, but there is an issue with notability. Are there any sources which show that his books were reviewed? If so, please add them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much ! This sourses is good ?, researchgate - OTOGI ^Messages 12:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, that is a good source, however, they do not show notability. Usually, notable scholars have several works with hundreds of citations each (this varies of course by the subject matter). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to ping an editor with a lot of expertise regarding scholars: David Eppstein, to see if he would be good enough to take a look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it. - OTOGI ^Messages 12:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Notability not obvious to me, but there's probably a language barrier preventing me from accessing published reviews of his work in Georgian or Russian (if they exist), and from distinguishing major national-level awards (which might contribute to notability) from local university-level awards (which do not). His Google Scholar profile [5] shows zero citations, exceptionally low, but again that's probably the language barrier. The American Biographical Institute Who's Who listing is a vanity scam award and an embarrassment to the subject (or should be) and should just be removed from the article; it does not contribute (positively) to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you as always for you detailed analysis, David. Otogi, do you understand what is needed in order to show notability? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, David Eppstein! Thank you for your advice and thank you again onel5969. I agree with David. Unfortunately, reason is language barrier, because as you know, all Georgan soviet scientists wrote in russian or georgian language, in this case also, same situation. What Is to be done... i don't know. It is a fact that i am writing, but maybe none of this matters. - OTOGI ^Messages 12:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Blooket, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4: not sufficiently identical to deleted page. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Even tough the actor in question (Michael Kovach) is a blue check-marked verified user on Twitter and most other verified voice actors (Erica Lindbeck, Kira Buckland, etc.) get to have Twitter ref sources on the roles that they did by actually tweeting/posting about their roles on their Twitter feed. I really don't see the notability problem on why Kovach can't have it on his.-Prince Silversaddle (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

No social media outlets are valid sources, twitter, youtube, instagram, facebook, etc. And even if they were, it would be a primary source, which does not give notability to anyone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. I just saw that you nominated an article for deletion written by an editor that we both seem to have had some issues with. Although I am not new to editing, I am new to nominating articles for deletion—as I have never really had an issue like the one this editor creates. The pages I am looking to nominate are Oleksandr Rudenko and Oleksandr Yosha. The reasoning is the exact same as the reasoning you used to nominate Vitaliy Arinin. I tried to use what you did as a template for the other two, and I have checked the nomination process run-through, but it's a bit unclear, I admit. Any help you can offer is greatly appreciated. Anwegmann (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Do you have Twinkle? If so, there's a link on the drop down menu which forms the AfD nomination (and CSD and RFD, etc.) correctly. You can find twinkle at: Wikipedia:Twinkle. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi

) 19:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Many articles moved to draftspace

Hi @Onel5969,

I have noticed that, recently, you have moved many articles to draftspace (often mentioning lack of notability or insufficient in-line references as a reason). In some cases, this makes sense, but my impression is that you have been making an increasing use of that feature over recent weeks/months, and I do not feel that it was justified in all circumstances.

For example, this week you draftified

. The first one had six in-line sources -- while it is not that many, I feel it is also sufficient to deserve at least to stay online so that other editors have the opportunity to add more sources (especially since this is a very non-controversial topic: it is an article about a mountain). The second one has 22 in-line sources and 4 bibliography, and is again on a rather non-controversial topic. Anecdotally, the second one is the translation from a featured article in Spanish Wikipedia (I know that it is not a criteria that matters, but worth keeping in mind).

Could you provide more details as to why these would need to be deleted? Deleting articles that are already quite mature is a strong deterrent for well-intentioned editors and translators.

When draftification is used for very specific issues, I think it is a good tool, but I think it is important not to over-use it. In this specific circumstance, do not think that these would pass an AfD vote if they were submitted, so I would be inclined to republish them as-is so that we can get the opinion of the community in an AfD process.

Thanks a lot for your reply 7804j (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at the rationales for those two specific deletions. First, draftifying is not deleting, one of the core tenants of Draftify is that there is a chance of it being notable. Regarding the two drafts, included in the draftify message was the specific reason: "While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive." Over half the article was uncited. I could have left it in mainspace, marked it reviewed, but then I would have had to gut the article as per

WP:VERIFY. My interactions with editors find that they prefer the draftification, rather than gutting the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

19:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I have "bothered" to read the rationale, and I unfortunately disagree with it. I think it is an exaggeration to say "There are large sections which are wholly uncited" -- there may be specific sentences and some paragraphs where the source is not mentioned, but in many cases it is because it relies on the same source as another paragraph of the same article (in which cases, it is not about a lack of citation, but maybe lack of in-line references).

In my experience, the most helpful has been the use of the in-line "Citation needed" tag, which helps understand which parts of the article need additional citations. So I think the approach of leaving it in the mainspace and then either marking specific sections as lacking citation (or "gutting" them if you prefer) may be better in these specific articles so that the translator can understand which specific parts are not ready.

(as a side note, my impression is that you have much higher standards for what is considered as "lacking reference" than most reviewers/administrators in the English Wikipedia. I know that you are allowed to remove any uncited material as per Wikipedia policies, but many other reviewers do not enforce it as strictly. Strict enforcement may lead to marginally higher quality articles, but it also has negative side effects of discouraging content creation) 7804j (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want, but the fact is that more than half of each of those articles is uncited. Encouraging sloppy articles does a disservice both to the editor and WP. In my experience perma-tagging articles is actually worthless, as the tags remain on the articles for years without improvement. And I used the term "bothered" because your initial comment gave no indication that you had read the comments, since it completely ignored them.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The subject is notable, Working for a cause of people. I saw an account with the name of Kiranverma imhad edited but i think his article should be on Wikipedia. According to my search, he has been top viewed influencer profile on LinkedIn in 2018. Reference are mentioned in The Article. Rest is upon you. Thanks अकबर अली फरहान (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969,

Just notifying you (as you asked to) that the Sports strategy has been modified by inline citations to secondary sources to all sections. Just explaining my rationale why I kept some sections unsourced was because they are basically summaries of other Wikipedia articles and I don't want to cause "referencing" chaos between summaries and main articles. However I think it works now. --Danielsltt (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice job, moved back to mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969,

Josefina Blanco was a great Spanish actress, whose professional life was overshadowed by the genius of Valle Inclán. Initially the article was created based on bibliography, but her importance as an artist has allowed us to find news and reports on websites and online newspapers that allow us to verify and reference all these facts. Pirandello3 (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969 There was no copyright infringement on Miss All Nations. Please let me know where this can be discussed. Please limit our interaction otherwise. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you recently marked Lilo & Stitch (2024 film) as reviewed, but the page has several flags that should have prompted draftification or redirection instead. Firstly, the film in question does not satisfy the

) 16:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries. While not meeting the guidelines of NFF, I did feel it passed GNG, but different folks see things differently. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Good evening from a sunny Scotland, I have reverted your edits on this article as in this case "jew" is not a proper noun. It is short for jewelfish. The ootoliths of these fishes and their relatives were used by various cultures as jewels, see Lucky stone. It has nothing to do with the Jewish people or religion. Personally, I would find it uncomfortable using that name, despite its innocent derivation. Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain that. I didn't realize that when I was doing my spelling patrol today. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969! I saw you did some clean up for the Verisart page, and thank you for that. However, the ".ART" is the correct one. Here's how you did it, though.

"Verisart has since partnered with several art industry stakeholders, including eBay, Art Systems, and the Design and Artists Copyright Society (DACS). Other partnerships include Paddle8, SuperRare, Vouched, Artsy,. ART, and Shopify. It has also worked with some of the best known artists, including Ai Wei Wei and Shepard Fairey to certify their works of art."

It should be "Arsty, .ART,..." Please check. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, @Onel5969! This is regarding the Orphan tag on the page. I have already link Verisart to Art market. Please check. Thank you.Bmjc98 (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Why couldn't interviews count as GNG? I never understood that. -- LegalizeAnythingMuppets (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Interviews are considered primary sources, and therefore do not go towards

WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

20:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule that I'm aware of. A simple community newspaper Q&A would be primary. I'd have a hard time believing anyone would argue that an interview with David Frost would not go towards GNG. An extensive article may be partially based on an interview, or a press conference - and that some questions were asked, doesn't make the entire article not GNG-worthy. Nfitz (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually there is.

WP:PRIMARY), that interviews are primary sources.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

22:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

My point above is that interviews depend on context; and that it's not a hard and fast rule because context is important. Do you disagree on that being the policy User:onel5969? Nfitz (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I've explained, and given links to the actual policy and guidelines, which are not simply a point of view. Do you have any to back up your point of view. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it says on

WP:GNG's 4th point that sources should be secondary, not that they need to be. -- SuperJew (talk

) 05:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You've pointed to a policy (

WP:PRIMARY that literally says in footnote d that "including (depending on context) reviews and interviews. Why cite the second part as a way to never use interviews, and ignore the first part that says "depending on context". All I've said here is that it's "depending on context". The sentence you cited says "depending on context". Why then do you choose to ignore this. It feels you are cherry-picking the policies to support your position, rather than using the policies to inform your position. Nfitz (talk

) 21:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hunno-Bulgarian dilemma

Hello, few minutes ago I asked help from Hunno-Bulgar page from moderators. I got a notification says it has been reviewed. What does this mean? Am I able to edit page anymore? Those who redirect in talk page do not reply my questions. Volgabulgari (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, or what exactly you are asking. I'm guessing you're referring to the discussion you're having at

WP:WALLOFTEXT, as that makes it onerous on other editors to slog through everything. Austronesier is one of the most adept editors when it comes to language topics, so I would heed their advice. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

21:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe that there's enough resources to at least enter a hyphotecial superfamily in Wikipedia supported by some scholars. They asked sources and I quoted many historians and linguists at talk but now they don't answer me. I want to delete the redirect. Volgabulgari (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing Ius civile vigilantibus scriptum est so quickly and all your other diligent work at new page patrol!

WatkynBassett (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Keep up the good work. Page was very well structured and sourced. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

If an article is a contentious candidate for a redirect or draft space, the proper course of action is to seek consensus on the article's talk page and NOT to use

22:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, those are bad NAC closes. While the articles may at some point be notable, they were not at time of nomination. For example, 2023–24 Serie A still has no additional sources added, and still fails to meet GNG in its current condition. As pre discussions at ANI, if an article is a contested draftification, and still does not comply with GNG, the only option is AfD. This is a perfect example of why they should remain in draft until the effort is made to make them capable of meeting GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying that using the article's talk page isn't an option to talk about the article's status? I don't think that was the intent of the ANI discussion, and you did not seek consensus or make any attempt at communication outside of AFD. I stand by my closes, and if you wish to dispute them you are free to bring them up at

WP:DRV. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk)

22:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

There's a complete failure to respect NEXIST. The state of sourcing in the article is secondary compared to the what readily is available to source; AFD is not the action to take sourcing isn't sufficient yet. And you are already aware of this. Tell me more about this ANI thing - I'm very tempted to look for a topic ban on AFD creation, based on either ignoring the AFD creation guidelines - or possibly not understanding them (though that seems very unlikely to me). Also if it's snowing (and how do you not know it will), why ignore the discussion, and why not save everyone the time, and withdraw the nomination. And really - how weren't ANY of these redirects, rather than deletions? Nfitz (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you bother to check to see if they were redirects? Or had been draftified, and than returned to mainspace without any improvement, or any effort to show that they passed

WP:GNG. That's the true disruptive editing, unless you think WP is a joke, and not an encyclopedia. They were all redirects, which were simply reverted. If the effort that had gone into the AfD's had gone into the articles (which all still suck in terms of sourcing, btw), than they never would have gone to AfD. Neither you, nor the above editor have taken the 8 seconds to look into the history of any of the articles. They were all (except the EFL article) tagged for improvement. No improvement. They were all redirected, redirects were reverted, again, without improvement, all were draftified (again, except the EFL article), and all were returned to mainspace, again without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

00:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are ignoring what

WP:NEXIST. Knee-jerking to AFD or draftspace is absolutely NOT the proper response when improvement is not only an option, but you neither attempt to improve nor to actually communicate with the editors involved. I would recommend that if you refuse to take a little time to see if an article could possibly be improved before taking such drastic action that you step away from whatever patrolling it is you think you are doing, because it is more disruptive when editors try to return to work on something they are actively trying to improve just to find it has been moved or effectively blanked. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk)

02:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Glad you're agreeing that the issues in these articles are sourcing and not notability, and that if people put in the effort they would never go to AfD.

AfD's purpose is to delete articles aboout not-notable topics, not to kick editors into making efforts to clean-up and source an article. --SuperJew (talk

) 05:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

After several weeks, hardly a knee-jerk reaction. And again, you have not bothered to look at the talk pages of the editor, where messages were left with a detailed rationale for draftification. Again, the disruptive editing is returning bad articles to mainspace without actively trying to improve them. And when I say "improve", I'm not talking about simply adding more unsourced information. And I know that folks fall back on the old AFD is not cleanup argument (which is an essay), however, in these types of situations, where their is an incalcitrant position to not improve an article to bring it into compliance with GNG,

WP:DIC is a much more relevant essay. These are not articles which are come across and then immediately sent to AfD, in most cases 2-3 attempts have been made to get the article to be improved, over a period of weeks. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

08:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

1. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP
   is an essay written as an addendum to policy. Policies describe that which MUST be followed and hold precedence over guidelines, which describe that which SHOULD be followed; ergo essays as addenda to policies hold precedence over essays as addenda to guidelines.
2. Expecting editors to search for discussions about ARTICLE improvement on the USERS' talk pages is absolutely bad-faith. The proper location to discuss article improvement is the article talk page where it is much more visible.
3. To expect others to be aware of attempts outside of the appropriate venues to obtain consensus and improvement and then to get upset when others didn't know about those discussions is a much more recalcitrant attitude. You have not yet acknowledged that perhaps you were reverted because others didn't know about your concerns because you either left non-descript or canned edit summaries or did not communicate to a wider audience on the articles' talk pages, and your responses in this discussion lead be to believe that you
   WP:DONTGETIT
   .

— Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope, the person who doesn't get it would be you. Now, since you have nothing constructive to say, stay off my talk page. Have a good life. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If a series of contentious AFDs end in SNOW keeps, then the person who undraftified or unprodded the article isn't being disruptive - they are improving the encyclopedia. I don't know how the articles came to be there - but all four were 100% bog-standard. Trying to delete them based on some procedural legality on how they became to be is not the answer. I'm now aware of the ANI case (

) 20:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Warned by some, and told to do exactly that by others. In fact, to do that was in the majority. Then once I started doing that, several of the folks who said to take that action began that ol' backpeddling. And it's not "some procedural legality". It's policy.

WP:OSE is not a good argument. But it's clear we're not going to get anywhere here. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

21:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• The closer and other's hoped you'd take the comments to heart. I think you are looking for a very black-and-white rules - where there are no rules. Extending comments about being okay to draftify or redirect bios, to deleting sub-pages of a Continental championship that is weeks away, isn't reflective of policy. If the discussion at ANI wasn't enough, surely the SIX SNOW keeps should be telling you that you shouldn't have nominated these. You've been here long enough to know this. I'm really concerned that you are not taking this to heart. Nfitz (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Onel5969,

If every time you move a particular editor's work to Draft space, they then turn around and revert your draftification, and this happens over and over again, please consider NOT draftifying their future articles. You've gotten your point across, perhaps a dozen times, and the editor is not taking advantage of working on their articles in Draft space so your persistence in moving all of their articles will only result in resentment towards you. It certainly isn't resulting in improvement of the articles.

If the articles are truly unworthy, please use one of Wikipedia's deletion processes. But doing the same activity over and over again and having it continually reverted, just doesn't make any sense and doesn't serve any purpose.

If you are wondering who I'm talking about, you might start reviewing the nightly draftification report, User:JJMC89 bot/report/Draftifications/daily. You can see what articles have been moved to Draft space and which moves have been reverted because the main space article links are blue once again. It can be helpful to see how many of your draftification decisions have "stuck" and how many have been reverted. Thank you again for all of your contributions to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz. So you think it would generate less resentment if I simply draftified one of an editor's poor articles, and if they objected to it, send all of their poor articles to AfD (since that would be the only option, PROD would be inappropriate, since they would obviously be contested)? While we don't always agree, I always respect your input, but in this case it does not appear to make sense.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

hi, i wanted to know why the article for 1965 (Zella Day song) was rolled back. did it meet wikipedia’s notability standards? AlpineH (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. No, there wasn't enough in-depth coverage to show it passed

WP:NSONG. The only in-depth coverage was from high school student newspaper, not a reliable source. Other than that, the rest of the coverage is just mentions or lyric database entries. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

08:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Stacey Robertson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G12: not sufficiently creative for copyright. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

When you use semi-automated tools on Wikipedia, one of the expectations is that you are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of those edits and not clicking through in quick succession. Otherwise, this is considered abuse of the tools.

Lately, you've been making a large number of edits like this[6] changing pipe links related to volatility, and usually directing to an entirely unrelated article Volatile (astrogeology) for most subjects seemingly as a default. Most of those instead dealt with volatility in terms of chemistry or organic compounds. If there is every doubt, just leave the link going to the disambiguation page. During that string of edits, you were maybe spending 10 seconds between edits on average, which is why those actions caused a pretty big red flag on my watchlist.

I don't have time to go and fix all of those articles, so please go back and double check all of those volatile related edits you made earlier, and please carefully review tool-assisted edits like that in the future. KoA (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, not sure that I would categorize this as "mass errors". Went through the list of dabs, and out of 200+, I found another half-dozen or that I've reverted, in addition to the one you highlight above, and the four you already reverted. By the way, all of these were already mistargeted, since they were all linked to Volatiles, which was simply moved to Volatile (astrogeology). Finally, even though the dab of astrogeology was added, it doesn't just deal with astronomy related items, but also earth crust and vulcanism as well.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Can someone help me find a page about the List of the 50 Lowest Grossing Animated Films worldwide? Nostalgia Zone (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure exactly what you are asking for. Do you mean you need help finding sources in order to create the page? If that's the case, you might post a more detailed message over at the film project, or at the teahouse. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I need to finding sources. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't really deal with film statistics, or box office subjects. You should post at the project space talkpage, and see what they come up with over there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, OneI5969, thank you very much for reviewing my translated articles. I read your text on your page and understand the importance of reviewing now better. Kind regards, Naomi Hennig (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Not sure why the page for this Ann-Margret album has disappeared and re-directs to her main page? Jarrod76 (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. There wasn't enough in-depth coverage about the album to show that it passed

WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

11:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Footy season articles

Come on now, you got to use some common sense. Top level teams, AC Milan, Tottenham, and others, those articles will develop quickly. People will make these articles, and continue to make and edit them. It's pointless to send them to AfD when they are just going to come straight back. Please now, use some common sense and leg bygones be bygones! Govvy (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you could spend time getting the folks who make those articles prematurely, getting them to remain in draft until they are ready. That would be the true common sense thing to do. There are articles about top tier teams which have never been improved for years. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Alas, there are thousands of footy articles on wikipedia, I don't think any one person will sort them all out! :/ Govvy (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I'm so ardent about attempting to nip them in the bud, so that they don't languish as poorly done articles for years. I'm not trying to pick on any particular type of article, Footy articles just seem disproportionately affected, but that's because they are a large portion of new articles. Not sure why folks don't want good articles on the site. And when I say "good", I'm not talking about GA, but about articles that are well structured, and well-sourced. Whenever I talk to folks outside the WP community, and hear them disparage the project as little more than cruft, I always tell them, there are tons of good articles on the site. Just look at the sourcing, if it's well sourced, then you can count on it being accurate. But when stuff is unsourced, who knows? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There does seem this element to mass create, that's one thing wikipedia is good at, but at the same time it's a curse! I've created a number of articles myself, they evolve over time. I wanted the Tottenham Hotspur articles to be good articles, because that's my team. I just feel I get frustrated sometimes, I am more a person who will support the historic old player article about a player from 100 years ago. Those are the types of things I like and want to champion, but at times finding the information is hard. I get fed-up when people say there is no notability for these articles, about players when the internet wasn't even a thing! I wonder if they have looked at a book! That's where I come from! heh. Anyway, peace be with you. Govvy (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

With mass creation, I do think that, ultimately, the project will need to enforce some sort of minimum requirement on season articles, for example that they include at least one decent source that isn't just a stats site. For example, we have hundreds of articles like

WP:BEFORE, which I would have no idea how to do, so, of course, what everyone does is they just leave the article as it is, in an unacceptable state. There are hundreds of season articles like this. I'm not sure what benefit they bring. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)}

22:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

These weren't mass-created articles - they were all bespoke. That a user is still trying to justify this action, is making me think that this needs to be escalated - as there's a clear lack of understanding on what appropriate behaviour is, and that these deletions are disruptive, and damage the project. Nfitz (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree these AFD nominations are flawed and the matter should be 'escalated' (raised at ANI seeking a topic ban?) - competence is required and Onel clearly has none in this area. GiantSnowman 22:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969: There are also 2023–24 Real Madrid CF season, 2023–24 Wrexham A.F.C. season, and 2023–24 Newport County A.F.C. season. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

How should I improve the refs on

11:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. As I said in the tag, take a look at

WP:CIT, to see what needs to be included in a citation in order for it to be valid. You can't simply list a book, you need to provide more detail, like page numbers, for a start. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

11:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Cambridge City Council election

I think the Draft:2023 Cambridge City Council election is ready for submission. there isn't much else than can be added and given that last years local elections in the UK all had a page including the local elections in Cambridge this article is worth having. Bentley4 (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. There are zero in-depth, independent sources in the draft. Just because something has occurred, does not make it notable. And

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

08:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Already reviewed and accepted page moved to draft

Hello,

you moved the page Yarden (musician) to draft few days ago with some comments. I added some feedback under it but not sure if it got to you so I am copying it here for your visibility and engagement.

“Hello, I appreciate the work you do as a reviewer, tho I am new here, I see the value of your expertise in patrolling and ensuring relevant information are only available but I am unclear of your action and feedback on this particular article. Hopefully you can elaborate further. 1) This page has gone through several reviews by different reviewers 2) It was added to Draft a few days by a different patrol and after conversation on their page, it was added back live. 3) Some of the links were reviewed by a reviewer on wiki chat and suggested I could use them. There is no COI or UPE conflict. There is a mention of verifiability, can you share an example in that case? With none of this issue raised with the others, I am unclear what to do next with this. If you can provide specific actions, I can review. Thanks.” 12closecall (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Additional commentary added on the original source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:12closecall#c-Rosguill-20230427154500-12closecall-20230423201700 12closecall (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi! So you edited some of my articles/edits before and I got curious. I read your "thoughts" section about notibility and I was thinking about the articles that I'm currently working on. I usually work with Asian dramas/films. So what do you think are the essential parts that make a good relevant TV show/film article? For me these are the essentiels:

•Ratings (for TV shows): I try to add a little description sometimes (high/low ratings, ranking, stability...) / Box Office (for films)

•Overall reception: Commercial (includes ratings, DVD sales, licensing..) + critical if available (Professional reviews for Asian dramas are uncommon)

•Accolades: Awards & nominations + select Listicles

•International broadcast: I think many ignore/underestimate this section but I consider it important, probably even more than accolades simply because translates into sales>>commercial success and popularity.

•Other: Adaptations, remakes, sequals, home media...

I brought 2 examples here, the first I consider "a good article", the second "lacking a lot and not notable enough", any thoughts?

Dream High (2011)

) 23:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi RWikiED20 - as with anything it is about the quality and depth of coverage. For example, a four-line blurb in TV Guide does not have as much weight as an in-depth review of several paragraphs in The New York Times. But with films and television shows, the main thing is critical discussion of the project. Announcements and press releases are fine for certain aspects of the article (i.e. dates, cast, etc.), but don't do much for notability. Critical reviews are the best, but also, if there is in-depth coverage of the development of the show, that would also work. In the two examples you gave, the first is obviously more well-developed than the second. I hope this helps.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for replying, really appreciate it.

I absolutely agree about the critical reception importance, however, if you're familiar with Asian dramas/films, you'd know professional reviews aren't really a thing. As I said earlier, they're uncommon and often you'd find a brief praise for the actors and that's it. Also, "reviewers" would be just regular reporters for news outlets. And this is why I try to be inclusive and add several other metrics for notability like accolades, Int broadcast..

Honestly, my goal here was to get an opinion on that second example. I didn't think it was notable enough to have its own article. Commercially, it was a failure (in terms of ratings at least), I tried looking for other sources but there were only a few, much less from reputable outlets. I considered nominating it for deleting but then I wanted to improve it instead, however, my edits were deleted (ironically for "notability"). I didn't really try to talk it out before having a neutral side's second opinion.

PS: Notability in South Korean dramas is a common issue here on WP.

And again, thanks! RWikiED20 (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your maintenance tag on the article I created, and I wanted to get a better idea about your thoughts on the matter.

I can see the perspective that the source coverage is much more in-depth about its founders and/or the awards program it administers than the organization itself, but I particularly considered coverage of the latter (the Voice Arts Awards) to be somewhat inextricable from coverage of the organization itself. I did kind of go back and forth with myself whether it would be better to make an article about the Voice Arts Awards first/instead, but in poking around at comparable awards and professional societies, it seemed that they tended to come in pairs. Ultimately, I had it in mind that I would create a Voice Arts Awards article as the other half of this pair.

I used Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences as a kind of template for this article, as it is a good example of another organization whose coverage in sources is largely inextricable from its event, the D.I.C.E. Awards, and it is also a fairly "niche" organization. However, you can see a similar phenomenon with Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and the Emmy Awards as far as the lines being blurred between coverage of the organization and coverage of the awards/events.

Now, is it possible that all of these articles have the same coverage/notability issues? Sure. But one can only go off of what already exists to interpret the spirit of the guideline rather than the letter. :) LaMenta3 (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi again--I would still appreciate your thoughts regarding the notability/sourcing tag you placed on this article. Thanks, LaMenta3 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 2012–13 Hereford United F.C. season, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4: not sufficiently identical to deleted article. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Since I can't see the deleted article, I thought someone should have a look, since there didn't appear to be any new sourcing since the AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Greetings Onel5969. I saw you reviewed my page Murder of Kateryna Handziuk 30 min ago. I appreciate that, I'll continue to develop it. Can I ask if u might be have some time to help us in Draft_talk:NetReputation on page-class grading. Kuru and Lopifalko helped me to develop the page, but we need one more point of view from patrol reviewers. Btw, NetRep is a censorship organisation, so if article looks not perfect we can leave her in the article space with mark expert needed template refering relevant Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech. Best regards, your Paranoya23Paranoya23 (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I submitted request for submission the page here. You're welcome to take a look. Paranoya23 (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. You were the one that raised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugeniusz Olszyna. Does this new version address the concerns or is it just a repost of the deleted article? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. G4'd it, we'll see. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Spiderone - I guess that answers that.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, you have removed the Iraqi News Agency INA. Iraqi News Agency (INA) is the state run official news agency in Iraq. The official news agency of a country is categorised as notable. Please check Reuters that uses INA as its source for Iraqi News: [7] or Aljazeera (this link). It has been a source of news for decades from the Saddam era as the only Iraqi news agency (see BBC) and restarted from 2017 (Check the history). The INA, is the official representative of Iraq in the The Federation of Arab News Agencies (FANA). [8]

How it is possible that an official news agency of a country is not considered notable and other members of the same federation (FANA) are considered notable? If we compare an article Oman News Agency we see that Iraqi News Agency (INA) is more informative. I would appreciate it if you could please review it and advise further. Thank you. Forwiki2 (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Forwiki2 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi.

WP:SIGCOV. This was tagged for several days without improvement, and has it didn't have any SIGCOV, it was reverted to a redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

20:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Onel5969 Thanks for this. To be honest I did not see the tag and was not aware of that. Otherwise I would have fixed it.

News agencies are the source themselves and there are few articles about them particularly if they are national news agencies.

If you check many articles about national news agencies, you'll see they generally just have a few sources. This article Bulgarian News Agency and this article Belga (news agency) and many others are in the same situation because they are national news agencies not international ones.

In addition the previous sources, I will add more sources to the article as it is very well notable, more than many others:

The Iraqi News Agency (INA) had employed 320 editorial technical and administrative staff. INA once had 48 offices and correspondents in Arab and foreign countries...[9]

In April 1999 the Iraqi News Agency (INA) launched an Arabic and English site, <www.nisciraq.net/iraqnews>.[10]

History of Iraqi News Agency INA [11] [12]

The Iraqi News Agency (INA) functioned as a propaganda tool for Saddam Hussein’s government during prewar era. [13]

And leading world news agencies were subscribed to INA This link

INA is Iraq reperesentative of the Federation of Arab News Agencies and played a significant role in establishing the federation.[14] [15]

Hope this help, If you agree, we can add the new source to the article and revert it. regards Forwiki2 (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if you add those sources, it will meet GNG. Feel free to revert and work on the article Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice Forwiki2 (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Onel5969. You had reviewed and declined a draft article for Shang Stanton late last year. I've added another contemporary reference and a Legacy section to emphasize the notability of the subject, and I hope you'll give it a look. I don't know what more I can do for old Shang except to show the high regard and level of notability accorded to him at the time of his death. Would you please look it over and give me some feedback? If you still find it insufficiently notable, then I'll probably abandon it. Brain Rodeo (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice job on the article. Have moved it back into mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!Brain Rodeo (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for review of Xray (test management) article. Unfortunately, you intervention was not necessary as the article already contained multiple (2) independent reliable sources to prove notability. Your pushing for at least 3 is not right. I added one more scientific source with less infromational value to satisfy your personal review demands. --Dee (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you need to really learn notability guidelines. Independence is just one quality. Reliability and significant coverage are two more. The first source is little more than a blog, and not reliable. Test management is a paid review, and the third is a primary source. Your additional source is a student thesis, so again, does not go towards notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

What does this mean? ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Same message at

Meelu clan ~Kvng (talk

) 14:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Long time no speak. I think you're referring to AILM? If so, that means it was created by an AI... AILM stands for AI Language Model. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. What's the evidence for that? In any case, why do you think deleting these articles is uncontroversial? ~Kvng (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Evidence for...? That the editor is an AILM? They admitted it during an ANI discussion. And regarding deletion, there have been several discussions over the last few months regarding the unsuitability of AI articles for WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you link to any of these discussions? I'd like to align my DEPROD activities to current consensus and obviously things are moving quickly in this area. ~Kvng (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I am glad the article passed apart from a lack of references. I suspect since there are 46 references from a wide range of reliable sources the encouragement was to put the references in better places?

Please let me know how else you think the article can be improved.RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. It is not that the article does not show notability, it does. And there are numerous citations. That being said, there are large portions of the article which are virtually uncited. For example, the Adoption section is virtually uncited. Same with numerous other passages throughout the article. I tag articles like that so that the editor has time to provide the sourcing, before the unsourced material gets deleted. I hope that makes sense. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Understood, it was what I thought lack of correctly placed references. I put the refs into the start of each topic, and was going to distribute them correctly when I had more time. It is possible to put back in to mainspace so that other editors can help with putting in references. Since it is the key article for the topic of carbon measurement and accounting, and was previously missing due to a redirect to a sub section of carbon accounting.RonaldDuncan (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you please reconsider moving Draft:Decentralized cloud computing to Decentralized cloud computing? I have made a new intro and added sources. --Glenn (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I can absolutely do that, but there are still large portions which are unsourced, so they would get removed. Would you rather I did that? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sandhya Purecha, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G12: not sufficiently creative for copyright. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)