User talk:Onel5969/Archive 41

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 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Archive 41: April 2017

Hello O. I hope you are well. You will remember this craziness. I finally had time to pull the DVD off the shelf and double check. There is no scene of Renfield drinking drugged wine in the Lugosi version. Just for grins I played the Spanish language version and, again, that does not happen. I wonder what version that editor was thinking about. In a Dracula related coincidence after watching the DVD I did a google search and found these pics from when a pre-Sherlock Jeremy Brett played the Count on stage. The sets were by Gorey and it really was a fun evening to be in the audience. It was also a delight to get to relive those memories. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:OR exists, imho. I had the pleasure of seeing Langella on Broadway in the late 70s (one of 3 times I had the pleasure of watching him work on stage), in what I still consider the ultimate performance of the role. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

21:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful choice O. IMO the play was better than the film version so it is wonderful that you got to see him on stage. For me there is one performance that comes close to Langella's and that is Louis Jourdan in the BBC Count Dracula (1977 film) version. It came out on DVD a few years ago and that was a great thing as my VHS tape was fading away - much like the Count does when exposed to sunlight :-) Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 22:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I also picked up this item last decade. It is a fun recreation of the Gorey sets. Make sure to click on the small pics below the main one to see them in detail. MarnetteD|Talk 22:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we work out some compromise here? There is a general anatomical idea of a "sac" which is not ambiguous, but not covered by any specific Wikipedia entry. Nature has made more kinds of anatomical sac than man will ever completely document, but I intended to make a sort of index of these. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have moved this article to Draft:Sac (anatomy) for now. It may be possible to craft an encyclopedic article on this topic. We will see. bd2412 T 22:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you, but thanks for moving it to draft space. Until it gets developed and fleshed out, I don't think there's a need to have a separate list article broken out from the main list. Take a look at

WP:WHENSPLIT. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Mexican football clubs.

Please note that when in dispute with an editor it is definitely not ok to take and article to AfD. I agree that Redirects are probably for the best but AfD is meant for deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries, Fenix down - I'll stay away from New Page Patrolling per your request. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying stay away from anywhere, just if you convert an article to a redirect (probably rightly so in these cases) and another editor disagrees, the best course of action is to discuss it on the talk page and if you can't reach consensus there, try taking to the project page for that subject and seeking a wider input. The problem with AfD is that if something is deleted as a result, then recreated, it creates all sorts of issues with the history. Fenix down (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with you. I've been involved in hundreds of those discussions which you suggest, and found them to be universally a waste of time. The page should either be deleted or redirected. The article creator had already reverted the redirect twice. In that case, I think the best place to seek community consensus is at AfD. Regardless, take care. As I said, I'll stay away per your request, was simply attempting to help out with a huge backlog. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think a discussion about the disruption that

talk

) 02:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mduvekot - I simply don't know. Using AGF, I hope not. When I interacted with Reagle, they seemed genuinely interested in improving WP, I think I even approved 2-3 of the article's from their class into mainspace. This particular user however, seems unwilling to learn. I suppose a discussion wouldn't hurt.

On another note, sorry I'm not helping out at NPP any longer. I had an admin object to the way I was patrolling, which I always take as a request for me to back off, which is why you'll no longer see me participating there. Regardless, if you do start a discussion, I'm more than willing to constructively participate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should let it go. I'm no longer convinced that Reagle's class are here to contribute constructively, but after reading their assessments I doubt they'll be back for more. I'll keep an eye out for his next class. Perhaps we can ask Reagle to tell his students to stop calling us "moderators"?

I'm sorry to hear you won't be participating in Page Curation any more.

talk

) 04:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually Mduvekot - When I started, I was attempting to keep the backlog from hitting 15,000. Eventually it got down to around 12,000, but in the last few weeks, despite attempting to do more, it has steadily grown. I try to focus on those which are uncited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing Billshark. I've updated Talk:Billshark in defense of the speedy deletion tag. Please can you take a look and highlight the advertising areas of the article so I can moderate the language and provide further notable sources. Manc1234 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Manc1234 - Only the lead sentence and the single sentence in the history section are not promotional. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me

neutral point-of-view

.

I have added a negative point to the 2nd paragraph of the overview for balance and added an advert tag to encourage other editors to improve the tone. Manc1234 (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. Many thanks for your help. Best regards, Andrew (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello bro

you added the Speedy deletion nomination of Aisha Sharma tag why? i never copied the content please see the copied video page. they copied from this page.

Mean Hunter 19:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mean Hunter (talk • contribs)

I am not 100% sure if

is ready to be accepted or not (leaning towards the 'not' personally) and I was wondering if I could get your opinion on it? I am asking as I am new to reviewing (just started today) and this topic is not my area of expertise. The reason I am asking you is because you have reviewed it previously.

Thanks for your time!

TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor. First, I think it's very smart of you to ask for help when you're starting out at AfC. I had a couple of editors help me when I started. And please remember, my advice here is simply that: advice... and mine. Other editors might approach the process differently. First, I'm going to tell you my process when I'm reviewing a new article.

1. Check sources. Most articles are not well sourced. This is also a check to see if the subject passes notability criteria.
2. Check for copyvio. If you don't have it, here's a link to Earwig's CopyVio Tool.
3. Check for neutrality.
4. Check structure, grammar, MOS issues.

If I'm going to decline it, I'll also check to see if the article exists on mainspace already. In the past, I also used to tell new editors about

WP:REFLINKS

tool, and help them out by doing that for them. AGF, I hope they will learn.

If an article has already been reviewed, I add a step at the beginning, and compare it to the version where it was last reviewed. Sometimes new editors will simply make trivial changes which don't address the prior issues, and simply resubmit. So taking a look at this particular draft, that certainly isn't the case, as the article's creator and other editors have done significant work. The article is certainly well-sourced, so normally it would pass my criteria #1. I did a copyvio check on it, and it has a slight copyvio problem. But it's so slight, I might go in and make the 4 changes myself. But since there is a copyvio issue, you could decline on that, and let them know all 4 sources which have been plagiarized. The article's neutrality is an issue, however. Especially when you have whole paragraphs which cite a viewpoint which are uncited (see the IABPFF section). And the rest of the article has a running neutrality issue as well. Right now I would fail it as a matter of POV. The grammar is also an issue, but not enough to fail it by.

Regardless, I hope this helps. And remember, this is the process I use, other editors might do it differently. Good luck, and thanks for helping out at AfC... we're always looking for new editors to help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I declined based on your advice and linked them the tool and top 4 references on the list. Thank you for the input, that does help! Also, thank you for the kind words :D Also, thanks for linking the copyvio tool, I had not heard of it before - it will definitely come in use so thank you! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Re: Chroust, you say that I have no evidence to back up him being widely cited... but you neglected to mention the many sources I added that demonstrate that.96.127.244.160 (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! I was wondering if you could give a second opinion on Draft:Debra L. Porch? The references I don't think are the best but The Sydney Morning Herald is definitely an interesting one but is just a mention (the name 'Debra Porch' only appears once in article). Due to the above I am leaning towards declining it but was wondering what you thought. I would normally have just declined it but the fact that it was made at an Edit-a-thon (Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism 2017) made me think it would be better to get a second opinion.

Thank you for your time and I hope that I am not a bother in requesting a second opinion on this.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again

WP:NOTDIR. And since this is a blp, every showing would need a citation. My recommendation would be for the editor to pick the 3 or 4 most prestigious and include citations. Also, the early life section is completely uncited. Also get rid of the list of grants, unless any of them have their own Wikipage. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Declined PROD

Hi. I declined your PROD nomination at Eva Szűts - Nowsky because it has previously been nominated for a PROD, which was declined. If you still believe it needs deletion, you'll need to use AfD. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

McGeddon. Will take it to AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia Revival

Hello, I'm Jamesjpk. I wanted to let you know that the Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia, has been tagged with a semi-active tag. I am messaging you about this because you are listed under the wiki-project's list of active participants. Please contribute to the WikiProject if you want to keep it alive! I hope that it becomes active again! Jamesjpk (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Onel5969, thank you for your correction of the Categories in my article Loux Corner. This was my second article I've created, the first one in geography. This will help me for future articles. Are1718 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For being in the top 25 New Page Patrollers every day for the entire week of April 2-8 2017, and the number one reviewer for three of those days, with a total of over 500 articles reviewed. Keep up the good work. TimothyJosephWood 21:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

that like to play with barnstars

Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

exscue me but why did you delete the death battle page for no reason? Crazybob2014 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Crazybob2014 - That's not exactly accurate. Please look at the history of the page. It was redirected as a result of an AfD discussion. Please do not try to circumvent that discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Wait. what is a AFD? Crazybob2014 (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion. There was a discussion among editors and the consensus was to redirect. If you go to the talk page of the redirect, you'll find a link to that discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Onel5969, I noticed you twinkled a reversion of an edit I made which effectively disambiguated a former redirect from the Muslim preacher and saint Yuz Asaf to Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam. I gave full reasons for the removal of the redirect on the talk page, and it was a controversial redirect. Could you please explain your reasons for reversion? Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi LutherBlissetts - A single cited stub was not persuasive to me. The designation of saint in Islam is far different than that in Christianity (from my limited understanding), so not sure that simply being a Muslim saint would pass the bar of notability. If the article had been more fleshed out, with better sourcing (other than a brief mention in an article which is more about the target of the redirect), I might have thought differently. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:FRINGE, hence why I removed the redirect. I would prefer it if this Fringe theory redirect was reverted to an imperfect stubby article, which can be fleshed out as soon as is humanly possible. Luther Blissetts (talk

) 01:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again LutherBlissetts (and why aren't you in bed?). I am swayed. Go get some sleep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Onel5969. Do feel free to pop into the Fringe Theories noticeboard if you ever fancy entering one of wikipedia's most bizarre realms. Luther Blissetts (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This album is on a independent label if you were looking for charts they might not be available. I have put nobility sources to show that they came out with the album and be allowed to stay. Los Mismos are alive but no one knows what's going on with them due to lack of promotion and label distribution. Sc30002001 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:NALBUM. I'm going to restore the redirect. The other alternative is to go to AfD, where it most likely will be deleted. Onel59s69 ^{TT me}

15:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Charts have to be there some where its best to find them then delete plus this album is part of Los Mismos so it should be allowed to stay. Sc30002001 (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I moved the article Feryal Gauhar once into the draft space since it the person didn't look very notable, however someone moved it into the article space again. I was going to again move the article into the draft space but I thought I should at least ask someone who's more knowledgeable about this. Should I move it back into the draft space or should it be left how it is? Plum3600 (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Plum3600 - moving an article to draftspace isn't a valid option in this instance. I agree with WikiDan61 reverting the move. The options would be to tag it (which I have done); "prodding it", meaning proposing it for deletion if you think it wouldn't be contested; or submitting it to AfD (articles for deletion). If this had been a new article, you could also request "speedy delete" under the A7 rationale, but that clearly doesn't apply in this instance, not only since it isn't a new article, but since there is a credible claim of significance (which is a lower standard than notability). Your instincts are right, this is a very poorly cited article. When I reviewed it, I think they may be notable, which is why I didn't prod it, or submit it to AfD. Other editors might disagree. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Why my page is subject to be deleted I'd like to keep it Bucodabelle (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bucodabelle - because it simply does not meet notability standards. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by nobility standards Bucodabelle (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Take a look at

WP:GEOFEAT. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

00:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Accepting draft

Hello. I am about to accept

talk

) 14:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Kostas20142 - I think your instincts are sound. It needs some cleanup, but definitely good enough for mainspace. Other editors may disagree, as some feel all the errors need to be corrected before moving to mainspace. In those cases, they would decline and be very specific about what needs to be done. In my opinion, there is a slight POV issue with the article. In addition, this is a blp, so there are assertions made in the piece without proper sourcing (e.g. unsubmitted doctoral thesis), but they are so few, a {{cn|date=April 2017}} tag for the few instances would be sufficient. If there were major portions of the article uncited, I would decline it, using the ilc rationale. Finally, the citation formatting is atrocious, but that can be corrected in mainspace. Go for it. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

14:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Call Me Mister (TV series) article

Hello, and thanks for your tag contribution. I've added another source. Thanks again. Carnelian10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

As the

) 22:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rathfelder - not sure why you think either of those organizations is notable. Neither has an article on Wikipedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

OK Go for deletion. I cant find any reliable resources in Internet. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No,

07:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry,

WP:STUB, and obviously interpret it differently. Might I suggest you re-read section 1.1. And thank you so much for your civility. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

11:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

But I have no problem taking the extra time to help out with stub sorting - if you could point me to the resources you use when you do that, that could reduce the time other editors have to take stub sorting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well it doesn't look like a stub to me! Though there are no tight rules. If you're determined to add a stub tag to a long-established article which already has categories, it would be more helpful to add the appropriate specific stub template: an easy way to find this is to go to the key category and browse up the category tree till you find one which has a stub subset: for Widdale you'd end up with {{NorthYorkshire-geo-stub}}.

Stub-sorting is done by working on the articles listed at Category:Stubs and knowing ones way around the stub category hierarchy, which can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types and its offshoot pages. While I'm there I tend also to fix DEFAULTSORT problems (stubs filing under forenames or under "The"), check that disambiguated titles are correctly linked from the base title (hatnote, dab page entry or redirect), make incoming redirects for alternative versions of the title, and do any other cleanup or tagging which comes to mind, depending on how interesting the article is. Sometimes it leads me off into long diversions, e.g. if the stub has an interesting redlink. All Wiki editors choose different ways to spend their time! PamD 11:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, will give it a try. Not trying to make work for other editors, on the contrary, simply trying to help out on backlogs. Btw, Widdell was not a "long-established article", but was an unreviewed article on NPP. It was from November, but that's how big the backlog has become. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

All of the other pages in that series have their own proper wikipedia page. It doesn't make sense for that one to be the only one in the series to not have a proper page, and it also makes no sense to just delete all the content and not at least add it to the Gary Paulsen page. It would have made a lot more sense to tag as needing additional sources rather than deleting the entire page. Trublucaribou (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I left {{notability|1=Biographies|date=April 2017}} but deleted {{proposed deletion/dated...}}. I also argued for keeping the article on the talk page. Is that OK? Cheers Vincent (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:BIO1E. And stating opinions on the talk pages is very appropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

19:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Mohawk River tributaries

Thank you for not changing them to drafts, you may also feel free to edit them instead of just suggesting to change them.

talk

) 21:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:GEOLAND, and therefore they should have an article. When someone comes along who is more interested in the subject, they'll get fleshed out. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

21:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Mohawk Valley tribs

Ok thank you no problem. I am trying to get more and more of the rivers added in New York to make the database on rivers more informative. And little by little I will go back and add other info to the pages I create if others don't.

talk

) 21:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I do the same thing with geo stubs in Arizona. Good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not vandalism? What Am I doing that constitutes this behavior? All I did was change the table to be more accurate. --67.86.213.216 (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

First, you've made the same incorrect change over and over again. That's the very definition of disruptive editing. Second, you removed a protected template. That's outright vandalism. Please stop. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've been doing some research on Max Steiner. I work at the Harold B. Lee Library, which houses the Max Steiner collection. We have a filmography compiled by the collection's curator, and I think it is a more reliable source than the AFI database. I want to change the Max Steiner filmography to reflect the Steiner collection's filmography, which has more information about if Steiner was credited and if he only wrote a few pieces for the film. I admit that I'm not well-versed in online sources for filmographies. Would you consider the AFI more reliable than our collection's list? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rachel Helps (BYU) - I don't know if I would quantify one more reliable than the other. I'm more familiar with the AFI database, and that is extremely reliable, although not infallible. I've found several mistakes (but in literally 10's of thousands of pieces of research). What I would do is make additions to the existing list from your database, and annotate the list. Currently it says "as per AFI's database, unless otherwise noted", so that's perfectly acceptable. Does your curator's filmography have an online link? If so, simply create a footnote to use for those entries. If there are quite a few additions, I might suggest changing the exiting wording to read something like: "as per AFI's database if annotated by a †, as per BYU's database if annotated by a ‡, others will be individually cited". Then simply tag each entry appropriately. I'm more than willing to help if needed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to let you know/explain that I have reverted your edit on

in reverting an edit that was a) not vandalism and b) not obviously unconstructive. I am assuming you probably are well aware of this policy (you do a lot of good work on Wikipedia) and in the future I would say you should contact the editor/use a more descriptive edit summary. That is the main reason I have written/will write quite a lot on this comment.

In regards to

, please see the following text from the guide:

"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)"

Based on this, the information present is quite permissible and is actually currently used for many major airlines as the list of destinations clogs up the main airline article. I did convert the information into a table, which provides more information than a simple list. However, I am pretty sure the simple list should have been just fine according to the policy you cited. PLEASE let me know if I am misinterpreting this!

I hope my logic made sense, please tell me if not. I also hope I did not come off too bold/rash :-), I wish you would have contacted me or included a more descriptive edit summary. I am always happy to discuss issues with my editing! Thanks and happy editing! Stinger20 (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, I was wondering if all double features should be added in the article Tokyo File 212 or only the most important ones? There are lots of them, especially in the US and Australia. I can prepare a table for them with sources. I'm working on making it a GA. What more suggestions do you have for it. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Skr15081997 - Unless there is something significant about a certain double-feature, I think this pretty much amounts to trivia. Many, if not most, films during this era were parts of double-features. If you add trivia to an article, imho, it would dilute it, thus making it more difficult to pass GA. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, I am contacting you about the speedy deletion of the “Empresas Andinas” article, performed by you in March 2nd. It is my understanding that the stated reason was the lack of a “Credible claim of significance”, which is why, in our intent to follow the due procedure as established by Wikipedia, we are addressing you first in order to request the article be restored, after which we would make the necessary revisions in order for it to meet the importance criteria.

We would like to include the following statement, among other information, in hopes to clearly convey the importance of Empresas Andinas: Empresas Andinas is a company with over 26 years of experience in the area of oil camp services and logistics. With active presence in four countries, and with two more in project to date, the company is a regional leader in its field. As of February 2017, Empresas Andinas’s website registered over two thousand visits per month, and from numerous countries.

We hope to soon receive a positive response from you in light of this new information.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiradi (talk • contribs) 12:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi

WP:CORPDEPTH, to understand what constitutes notability (which is different, and more substantial than "significance"). I'll ping that admin, RickinBaltimore, here, so you'll know who that is. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

14:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Onel. To piggyback on what you said, the page was deleted back in March due to the lack of notability that was established, and the lack of any sources outside that of the company's website. As Onel stated, before attempting to recreate the article, please read over

WP:CORPDEPTH to get an idea of what we are looking for. RickinBaltimore (talk

) 14:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

19:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I am very curious as to why my write-up on Joshua Sullivan has twice been denied. He is a notable data science pioneer who has forged groundbreaking discoveries in his field. I have included more than a dozen notable sources, including major new media publications, yet I am told that I need more/different sources showing his credibility. Additionally, one of these sources was criticized because it is a blog, but the source writeup domain is the Harvard Business Review. That is an extremely notable publication. Any advice as to how to tweak my submission would be greatly appreciated. Thank you kindly.

• DrSyence (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Joshua Sullivan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

DrSyence (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija#Title

you can set to change the name of the article in only Kosovo and Metohija --178.79.44.138 (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)