User talk:Onel5969/Archive 59

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 47: October 2018

Thanks for your comments on this draft article, Onel5969, this is very helpful.

I have acquired additional sources and I will revise and augment the article appropriately. In the meantime can you please clarify three issues:

1. A primary source of detailed information is the book ("Let IT go") authored by the principal individual behind the formation and development of the company - can I assume that that is an appropriate source? This is a regular book with an ISBN and listed on Amazon etc.
2. You indicate that 'company records' are NOT an appropriate source; do you mean that a specific company document needs to be identified? or that NO internal document is EVER acceptable?
3. Can I assume that publicly released 'internal' documents such as newsletters CAN be used, with an identified source and date of release?

Thank you again AndyB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi AndyB - First, please remember to always "sign" your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Now on to your questions, which I've changed to numbers above. #1 and #2 are the same answer - sometimes, and on a very limited basis. Both of those are considered primary sources, so they NEVER go towards showing notability. However, they can be used to very certain types of facts. For instance, they could be used to verify the founding date of a company, but they can never be used to verify something like, "With no capital and no real understanding of how to run a business", or " a "panel" of freelance software and systems specialists, almost exclusively female." It could be used to show stuff like revenue, as long as that fact is sourced to something like their annual tax report. #3 is easy, no, they should never be used, as they are rarely sourced, and are almost always promotional in nature. Going beyond your questions, the largest problem is the tone of the article. Take out any commentary (e.g. The early days were difficult; whom became significant role players...; it was interesting that the company's development paralleled the vogue for feminist thinking). The draft largely consists of stuff like this. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! I recently tried to expand the page on

I made changes to the page and left a note on the article's talk page as well. I will appreciate your suggestions. Regards, Swagsevo (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems another reviewer has taken a look at the article already. Good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Onel5969, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018^[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I see you've nominated Zoee for deletion. Firstly, it should probably become a redirect to Zoe: it's a plausible misspelling, and debatably a correct spelling of Zöe. Secondly, is it the same article as the one deleted in April or has it improved? I can't see the old version as it's not on any of the usual archive sites. Certes (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Certes - I can't see the old article either. However, this current incarnation is poorly sourced article with lots of Non-RS, mostly mentions and PR pieces. Lots of youtube, and pr announcements for shows. Seems to have the same issues as the article which was deleted back in March, nothing new added since then. Could be a redirect, but if it is, it should probably be protected to prevent SPA's from recreating the article about the non-notable singer.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Truthfeelsgood (talk · contribs)
  • talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Hi:  

My computer skills are not great so I apologize in advance. No, I am not writing an autobiography. I tried adding these sources to my page before I wrote you...I really hope it is correct. Not sure if I should resubmit, so writing to you before I do for guidance. I was nominated for an award recently for Digimon by Behind the Voice Actors but not sure if that qualifies. Thank you for your help! Best, Laura Summer Truthfeelsgood (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Links here. http://articles.latimes.com/1986-06-22/entertainment/ca-20890_1_hanes Sunday LA Times Calendar 6/22/86

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/oct/21/local/me-59784 Polly Rowles passing of Hanes Imspector 12

Real Ghostbusters/Janine character LA Times Pop Culture http://articles.latimes.com/1987-09-03/entertainment/ca-5843_1_tv-shows/2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digimon_Adventure_tri.#List_of_films (Digimon) dead link for my name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garfield_Show Druisilla, Minerva, Gloria dead link for my name

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

Truthfeelsgood (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi

WP:NACTOR. Unless I'm missing something, you simply don't seem to meet either. While awards are nice, it's the major awards (Oscars, Emmys, Tonys, Grammys, etc.) which count. I don't see where you have enough leading voice roles to qualify for NACTOR. I'll be more than happy to help you write this, if you could show me in what films you had leads (or major supporting roles). Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to have Mark Evanier, the director of Garfield Show to write in and state that I have played leads on The Garfield Show? It was a very large revolving cast. I get asked to do Cartoon voice over panels all over the world because I am known in the entertainment business for these iconic roles. I have participated on voice over actor panels for the Comic Cons held in San Diego and one in Anaheim, CA. The Los Angeles Times did that profile story on me about my TV commercial success esp with Hanes, because of my "cult" following. That is is very unusual. Hello Kitty's Paradise videos are sold on Amazon and there are many other gigs that I have done. Have close to 7,000 FB fans I think, but dont do Instagram or Twitter. (Worked for years doing ADR for Disney and films which no one cares about here I know, but pays nicely. I get lots of Fan mail, mostly for Digimon and Ghostbusters from the US and lots from the U.K. as well. Truthfeelsgood (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment

Hi Truthfeelsgood - You bring up some valid points. I'll take a look at it over the next few days and see if I can't make an article with enough sourcing to pass. Okay? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually it was not a telenovela but television series, I just copy paste material from some telenovela thats why you thought its telenovela and moved to wrong dab... please will you do something for that? 122.8.44.144 (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but that's the danger of simply copying material without consideration for accuracy. AGF, I take editor's at their word, if they say something's a telenova. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually i just copied main material which every Pakistan TV article contains like infobox etc.. and changed there main cast, director, producer so its not the issue i think? i copied it with Thakan which is actually telenova but not this article 122.8.44.144 (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response and correctify title :) .

Thanks for your feedback on the draft and I have updated it is requested. Hope this does the job MrArmstrong2 (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice job MrArmstrong2 - moved it to mainspace, and left a message on your talkpage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This [1] seems incorrect when the page is a list, sourced directly to the UN at the bottom. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

And actually I see you reversed a series of my accepts on these UN pages without a word to me. They actually fit into a series as seen in the infobox at the bottom. Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac - Because they were poorly formatted, zero footnotes, virtually uncited, and the lists without context, as several other very experienced had pointed out 2-3 times before, makes them unsuitable for the mainspace. Sent them back to draft so they could be properly created into drafts. They are not list articles. If you look at the later years in this series, you will see what I mean. There is commentary which gives the lists meaning. And why would I give a word to you? I left messages on the talk page of the article's creator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You overturned (up to) 12 of my accepts. The issues you identify can be solved with mainspace editing, not letting them rot in draft space. There is no rule that says a page has to be "complete". All info was properly cited. They would not be deleted at AfD. Legacypac (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I did not nominate them for deletion, rather draftified them so they could be worked on without having crap out on the mainspace. If you feel like working on them, feel free to do so. Right now, they don't belong on the mainspace. I also find it kind of rude when editors expect other editors to finish their work. I have an article right now which is not ready for mainspace, and have self-tagged it with an under construction banner to let anyone who looks at know that it is not ready yet, but is being actively worked on. If that tag went stale, I would completely understand another moving it to draft. And if I've overturned up to 12 of your "accepts", you might want to be more careful about what you send to the mainspace from AfC. There is a reason that some AfC reviewers have to have their accepted articles reviewed through the NPP process. There is a reason they should stay in draft state until they are ready. Those articles are nowhere near ready for mainspace, for the reasons I explained above. Regardless, take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Appreciate your kind efforts! Truthfeelsgood (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Why was my change to

Hi Stepho-wrs - because what you did is called a cut and paste move, which is not acceptable, since it doesn't address the editing history of the article. What you have to do is "move" the article. But since there is a redirect, you won't be able to. You will need to ask to have the redirect removed, then once it is removed, you can move the article. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I originally attempted to move it but, as you said, the existing redirect stopped it. I will ask for the redirect to be removed and then try the move again. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  03:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Good evening. It seems that you have deleted large chunks from the articles, them mainly being the /*Notable members*/ sections, due to the reason of "none of these people are actually notable by WP standards". I personally have read and studied the Wikipedia: Notability guidelines and it is about whether if the article itself is notable enough to have its own page or not - content of the article is not bound to them. A /*Notable people*/ list within the article is completely acceptable if the list is not a astand-alone article. I kindly ask you to reconsider your changes on the articles in question. Have a good night. Yahya Kuadzhe (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The standard on WP for "Notable People" is that they meet the notability standards. One of the easiest ways is to see if they have their own page, none of which these do. Additionally, in looking at the individual entries, none are likely to meet notability standards. So no, I stand by my deletions. But thank you for creating the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You have deleted people with military and academic significance as well. Two of them academic - one having a PhD in historical sciences, on the specialty of "social history", the other having a doctorate on the field of geology (in House of Kuadzhe, Kuadzhe Ruslanid Zaidovich and Kuadzhe Malazim Iskhakovich). The other one being a counter admiral and even having his own Wikipedia page on the Russian version (in House of Tkhaghapseu, Tkhagapsov Medzhid Makhmudovich). You may have mistakenly missed those.

Also, should not it suffice for the "Notable members" in the articles to be revelant to the article itself, rather than having to meet Wikipedia's notability criterias? With respect, Yahya Kuadzhe (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

On a second note, according to this section I was not violating the "notability criteria" of Wikipedia because the Wikipedia:Core content policies of adding people to the lists within articles does not require it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Adding_individual_items_to_a_list Yahya Kuadzhe (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Significance is not notability. You missed the key sentence in the

WP:NSCHOLAR. While there is no actual policy on this, it is the general consensus that they should be notable. Else, we'd have millions of irrelevant folks added to lists.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

00:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

At the same time, as we observe the said

core content policies, my point still stands. Yahya Kuadzhe (talk

) 00:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

And with all due respect, read what you just wrote, which includes: "plus the other content policies as well" which includes WP:GNG. What you are doing right now is known as

WP:WIKILAWYERING, and is pretty much frowned upon. Also, please learn to indent during a conversation to make the flow clearer. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

00:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Please forgive my ignorance of how to indent. I also apologise if I am unintentinally

WP:Ns only cover the notability of the topic of the article and not the contents. There is in fact a whole section titled [guidelines do not apply to content within an article] within that very page. As for the "plus the other content policies as well", they are listed here and they do not include what you claim to be included: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_policies . You would be correct if I were to create pages for the people in question of their own since they would be affected by Wikipedia's standards for "Notable People" and I am well-aware of it but this certainly is not the case. Yahya Kuadzhe (talk

) 01:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No, and I'm done talking to a wikilawyer. You aren't being "subjected to injustice". Learn the rules. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

And the fact that you have a COI on the page really means, after the diatribe above, that you can't make neutral contributions to the page, and should desist in editing them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I wanted to discuss the creation and deletion of the Jason Ginsburg page. I was looking to create a page either for someone involved in The Official Star Wars Fan Film Awards or someone who ran a funny blog or social media account. I thought I found both with Ginsburg. I used Molly Erdman's entry as a template, based on the following: I figured that was enough, and if Erdman had a page, Ginsburg should too, but I'm open to your thoughts. I could find more credits and citations for Ginsburg; he's got a few more credits on IMDb. QuarterbackSneak (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE isn't a valid argument. Sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

01:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what happened to the list of items that Erdman and Ginsburg have in common. Did you delete them?

Also, I'm not clear on

WP:OSE, which says "These 'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid." So sometimes the argument is valid, but in this case, the argument is not? Does that mean Erdman's article should be deleted, too? WP:OSE seems to mean whatever the person invoking it wants it to mean. Could you explain your take on it?QuarterbackSneak (talk

) 02:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted them, since they are irrelevant and don't belong on my talk page. OSE is very rarely valid, and in this case certainly isn't. In this instance the over-riding standards are

WP:NACTOR, none of which this person meets. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

10:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Unlike some of my other Wikipedia subjects, I haven't been in touch with Ginsburg. Still, I managed to find and add more references, including Science Channel, Playboy, and Frommer's. I think these, along with the Twitter, book, web series, and movie, are enough for

WP:NACTOR. Those are all the links I could find. Short of Ginsburg producing more, I've done all I can to make a case for the page's existence. QuarterbackSneak (talk

) 22:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Another editor feels there is enough there, which I disagree with, so I'll let another reviewer take a look at it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If you are going to do these, please make them better than this one. "Cultural property" is neither a description, nor a phrase that will convey anything to a high proportion of our readers. Nor is the description even true, as the church is not "in" the village (population 18, according to Spanish WP) but near it. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)