User talk:Onel5969/Archive 60

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 48: November 2018

If I knew how to write you on our thread from last week, I would do that as you have been super cool. Cited newspaper sources on my Draft Laura page, when yr time permits to hopefully bring credit list back from the dead. Toys I voiced for these popular characters-and action figures made, not sure type of link to provide. Thank you much! Happy Halloween Laura Summer Truthfeelsgood (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Truthfeelsgood - No worries, you don't have to go back to the old thread. I'll work at it over the next few days. Started just now, but won't do too much today or tomorrow. By Monday, should be good to move to the mainspace. In the draft, if I put a "citation needed", that means that I need an independent citation to show the facts of that sentence. If I can't find one, that information won't go into the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Look at me answering you back in the correct area. Fabulous. Thank you for your input and assistance! That's fine, as most important thing is having my name restored on cast lists.17:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthfeelsgood (talk • contribs) The name of the Garfield episode June Foray won her 2012 Emmy "The Garfield Show" was "Which, Witch" as Mrs. Cauldron. Mrs. Cauldron is the character that plays opposite twins Drusilla and Minerva. I voiced both twin girls (Druisilla and Minerva). Truthfeelsgood (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Hello again: Is there any movement to the mainspace? Can I provide anything else? Thanks so much for your assistance Truthfeelsgood (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Going through a bunch of audits in real life. Will work on it over the weekend. But don't hesitate to say, "hey what's going on?" as I do tend to get sidetracked. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there: Cool. Wasn't sure what was up. I completely understand. Thanks bunches!Truthfeelsgood (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

So sorry, to bug you about my mainspace action but you've encouraged me to say "Hey, what's going on"? Many thanks Truthfeelsgood (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, through the end of this week, will be unable to really put much effort into it. You're not bugging me. But give me about 10 days.... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Will circle back after Turkey Day. Thanks for responding so quickly.00:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthfeelsgood (talk • contribs)

onel5969 Hope your Thanksgiving was fabulous! Circling back to give you a little reminder. Thank you. 18:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Truthfeelsgood - Glad you had a wonderful Thanksgiving. Now that work has calmed down a little, could give it a bit of time. Finished what I could, based on available sources, and moved it to the mainspace. Going forward, remember not to edit the article yourself, rather leave a request on the talk page of the article, or here on my talk page (no need to continue this thread, you can simply start a new one). Anything you wish to add, please provide a reference from a reliable source. Also, if you upload a photo of yourself onto Wikimedia Commons (use this link), I can add it to the article. Take care of yourself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so very much! This is such an incredible relief. Thank you!!! Have a picture to add but need technical clarification :) Pix is at San Diego Comic-con and taken with my phone. Please advise exactly how do I fill out form or do you do it? Best. Laura Truthfeelsgood (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think your opinion is right. The

Well, we'll agree to disagree. This is a poster child for

WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't get your point. I believe the resolutions listed on "articles not satisfying the notability guidelines" don't include "reversion directly".--クオン·翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 12:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

My point is, why waste a lot of editors time by dragging such an obvious case of BIO1E to AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that I have an understanding on policies about notablity. Indeed, I usually deal with issues related with notablity in zh-wikipedia. I admit that the differences exist between zh-wikipedia and en-wikipedia. Nevertheless, I don't think the differences are significant. If you think this is an obvious case of BIO1E, why not giving me some precedents or just say why do you think you are right?--クオン·翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 13:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the differences between zh and en are huge. But if you want to waste folks time, revert my redirect, and I'll nominate it for AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it will be a waste of time. Additionally, Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack in Eastern Asia is just as infamous as 911 in the U.S.. Participants such as Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed have an article.--クオン·翡翠·鵺鳥·十姉妹·夜啼鳥 13:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It will be a waste of time. I'll certainly vote for the redirect to be restored.TheLongTone (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

And an

other stuff exists argument will go over real well. Regardless, let the waste of time begin. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi ::@Onel5969:. Regarding the The Ananya Panday page you reverted some time ago. And the Explanation given was "Restore redirect of non-notable, highly non-neutral stub". The stub contained only 3 Line in general all of which are true and notable. Being a Movie Lead actress. And Endorsing an International Brand. Moreover being the youngest star to do so. Are these not Notable facts and I have provided credible links for all. Hence I didnt really Understand the reason for removing the stub.(Purplecart (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC))

However if You feel anything is Biased let me. I will look into it ::@Onel5969: (Purplecart (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC))

Please read

WP:NACTOR, neither of which she appears to meet. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

14:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello O. I hope you are well. I am reading Michael Palin's diaries and am enjoying them immensely. In July of 1988 he was in New York for the press tour for A Fish Called Wanda. On the night of Wednesday the 6th he and Jamie Lee Curtis saw a performance of Much Ado About Nothing in Central Park. It starred Kevin Kline and Blythe Danner. Palin mentions how much he liked it and how he was impressed by Danner. Did you get to see this? Maybe even on the same night? I found this interesting review. Just thinking about seeing Brian Murray, Dylan Baker, Phoebe Cates, David Pierce and Jerry Stiller together makes my mind boggle. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 07:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I should add that it was only a few weeks later that he began his journey

around the world in 80 days which completely changed the arc of his career. MarnetteD|Talk

07:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. No, didn't get to see that. Actually, I've never seen a production in Central Park (although I love the park -- Olmstedt and Vaux were geniuses). The only production I saw in NYC in a park was the filming of The Warriors, in Riverside Park in 78 or 79. Let's see, in 1988 I was working in finance for a division of Corning during the day, and working as a lighting designer off-Broadway at night. By the end of the year, I had opened my own off-Broadway company. It's funny, but when I was actually working in the theater, I had very little time to see theatrical productions. But thanks for reaching out. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I can well imagine how busy both jobs must have kept you. Thanks for the info. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and sorry to bother you, but I have been probing around examining aspects of new page reviewer and page curation when I ran across your "Page curation log".

On that page I noticed that you marked Kawasaki Z400, redirected to Kawasaki KZ400, as reviewed. On the history I noticed another reviewer had edited the page. This article was created in 2006, tagged in 2009 for no references, and that tag is still there. Apparently a reference was placed under a "See also" and later a reflist added.

My questions:

• 1)- What led to a review? Did it arrive on a list because of a redirect?
• 2)- Was a review to get it off a list because it was a previously created article?
• 3)- On a review things like the tag, that looks like it could be changed to a "Onesource" or other tags deemed necessary, be placed?, and:
• 4)- When a page is reviewed is it not supposed to show up in the edit history or once it is reviewed and off a list that is all that is needed?

I am new at this and just making sense of things and these are just some questions that came to mind when looking things over. Otr500 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries Otr500. To answer your questions: 1: The article had been a redirect for years. When it was changed from a redirect into an article, that led it to the NPP page; 2: When I change an article back into a redirect, I always mark the page as reviewed, so as to not waste other editors' time; 3: I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but I use the curation tool to place tags on articles that I review. When you use that to tag, it automatically marks the page as reviewed. If I want to tag a page, and don't necessarily want to review it, I simply click the unreviewed button on the curation tool; 4: No, the act of reviewing does not go on the page history. However, at the top of the history page, right under the title, you'll see something which says, "view logs for this page". Click on that, and you'll see who has reviewed it and when.

Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes it helped --thanks. On #3 --- I was just wondering how much work to expend on an article when reviewing, thinking too much time could bog things down a lot and too little might not give positive results. I read DGG's user page that was informative concerning reviewing. My take is resolve issues if possible, interact, pass or fail (using the criteria that "if" it has a chance of surviving AFD it is likely a pass), but if it is going to be complicated let someone else do it. Otr500 (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

1. If you mean reviewing drafts at AfC, the guideline is that it should is passed if it is likely to pass AfD. The current consensus is that this means at least at 66% probable that it will pass, In practice, many of us use a higher percentage. , much more like 80%. This , like all guidelines, depends on the circumstances--if its a article where it is always disputed andthe result unpredictable, it should in my opinion go to afd to be decided there. If it's just very weak, it should be strengthened first. IThe rationale for improvement is that a really poorly formatted article or one with seriously unclear references is much less likely to pass AfD, even if it would otherwise deserve to. t's matter of judgement whether you strengthen it yourself or tell the submitter to do so and resubmit. If it's an draft on a topic where you cannot judge whether it would pass, let someone else review it.

2. NPP is different: articles don't pass or not pass NPP; rather they get sorted into the appropriate disposition: speedy deletion, blp prod, prod, AfD, just tagging, or good enough to not even need tagging. Sorting is done according to the guidelines for each process. If it unquestionably must be deleted because of one of the problems listed at WP:SPEEDY, it must be either listed for speedy or immediately fixed. If it's an unreferenced blp, it must be tagged blp prod or some other deletion process. Otherwise, if you are fairly sure the deletion will be uncontroversial and nobody will object, use Prod. Since even the original contributor can remove a prod, there is no point using it if the contributor is around and likely to remove the prod without fixing the article. Otherwise, if you think it should be deleted according to our guidelines, use AfD. It is OK to use afd if you just can't tell whether it should or should not be deleted, because in such a case, the community should judge, but if the reason you can't tell is that you don't understand the subject, let someone else review it.

3.How much work to devote to fixing an article depends on whether you know how to do it for that subject, whether you think that it can in fact be fixed with the knowledge and resources and time you have available,--and whether you want to do it. Some people like fixing, some don't. Nobody is required to fix an article they'd rather not work on. Sometimes I will try to fix an article because I suspect nobody else qualified is likely to do it. Sometimes I will fix in order to encourage a new contributor. Sometimes I will fix because I try to fix everything in that area that can possibly be fixed. Sometimes the only way to see if an article can be fixed is to try, and sometimes I try, but then give up, saying in the deletion nomination that I tried but found it unfixable--this is true both for not being able to find expected references, or finding an article is so promotional that if I remove the promotion, nothing is left.

4. As I and others keep saying ,the way to learn the necessary judgement about what can be fixed and what is hopeless is to join in afd discussions. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your kind help and attention to making Wikipedia more accessible to new editors. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 05:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

There's possible sockpuppets (or undisclosed multiples accounts) editing articles related to

Hi, I came across this. It appears to have been corrected now, and I hope this is an isolated case. But, you remember there was an ANI case earlier this year, which would have likely resulted in a topic ban if you hadn't stepped in and volunteered to refrain from fixing dablinks. Now, I'm not sure if this necessarily means you shouldn't be fixing any dablinks now, but it's definitely a good idea to at least tread careefully. – Uanfala (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. What did you think you were doing at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_Lexington&action=history given we already had On Lexington & 52nd Street? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tagishsimon - I honestly don't know what happened there. I certainly didn't create the page (or should I say, mean to create the page, since obviously I did create it). I went there to disambiguate a link to the US TV show, Smash, but the link I clicked on was On Lexington & 52nd Street. Having fixed the dab, I simply clicked to publish the changes. Not create a whole new page. You can see the link I clicked on here (they're in alphabetical order). If you look at my history, you'll see I was working my way down the list (after "On Broadway" and before "Our Day Will Come"). Very weird. Have you ever come across something like this happening before? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope. All very odd, but stuff happens. Main thing is that it wasn't deliberate ... I have met users who create multiple versions of the same page; very glad you're not one of them :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries Tagishsimon. Sorry you had to do that redirect. Hate making work for other editors. Btw, do you think we should request that redirect be deleted? As the article "creator", I could speedy it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It's probably doing no harm; helpful for people who remember the tune but forget all the words! But I leave it to you. Happy editing; glad & relieved to find you're not barking mad :). --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for thanking me for the redirect at

Agreed Doomsdayer520. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fennesz + Patton. Since you had some involvement with the Fennesz + Patton redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed,

PRehse (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Elmidae. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Benjamin Conner (engineer), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering whether that entry in the Dictionary of Scottish Architects was enough for notability. Maybe you know how that is treated? I put it up as a question at the NBIO noticeboard. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Elmidae - That's what I hung my "reviewed" on, but I probably should have tagged it for questionable notability. We'll see what the NBIO board says. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969,

Bro, i have added many verified references and citations to the page

Hi, would rework on Mekala Snehalatha by this weekend. Thanks.Meher Mansion (talk) 05:41, 16 November 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,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello again O. If you are interested next Friday this program about Hal Prince is airing. Last nights show about John Leguizamo was fascinating. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed,

PRehse (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Onel5969. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sara Ali Khan regarding one issue with which you may have been involved, as you edited that BLP. Thank You. 119.160.117.2 (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Dalibor Bojović, Onel5969.

Unfortunately Boleyn has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Looking over; a few concerns to tag for, e.g. no clear refs or cats.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Onel, just to clarify, not a reflection on your excellent work, but creator edit warring by removing your tags. Boleyn (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries... And not sure they are edit warring, just doesn't appear to know what to do. They didn't just remove tags, but also the short description, and the sorted stub, etc. Keep up your good efforts as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Onel5969 please don't refer this arcle to the list of cognitive biases. The list contains items with their own article and this item deserves an article of itself as well. The article can be expanded or it can be argued that it should be renamed, merged or moved to the frequency illusion. But don't just remove the article and redirect to a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renetus (talk • contribs) 15:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

RenetusSee note left on redirect's talk page. Don't add uncited material. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969, as suggested I have edited references/weblinks as well as categories. Would these changes be enough at the moment? Best, --Neomicro (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you help me delete this namespace? --hueman1 (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi HueMan1 - You want it removed to make way for moving the other article, right? Sure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Thanks man! --hueman1 (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)