User talk:Onel5969/Archive 62

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

Thanks

WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for kind response! "AfD's are not supposed to be votes", exactly this (though an admin could argue that majority rules and there was no opposition depite a relist for which a stepped in). The only reason why I did not put delete as a vote is like you said, can be closed as keep and would be an unneccesary Red "mistake" on my AfD Stats on https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=Jovanmilic97&max=&startdate=&altname= I too hope an admin will at least give a final relist if anything. The discussion so far in my opinion was not indepth or based in guidelines nor policy (except for E.M Gregory with

Jovanmilic97 (talk

) 12:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I stopped caring about my AfD stats a long time ago. Despite that, they're still pretty good. The good admins do adhere to the actual AfD policy. The unfortunate thing is that NAC's often do not, and merely count votes. Regardless, thanks for your efforts on the project.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"The good admins do adhere to the actual AfD policy" Good example just 5 days ago is this

Jovanmilic97 (talk

) 12:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Greninja. Since you had some involvement with the Greninja redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Might I ask why you've reverted my last edit to

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

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa - Any clue as to why when I ran my copyvio tool, it didn't pick up the copyvio which you have now removed? I used the new option on the page curation tool. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes when people copy from journal articles the copyvio detector does not find them. After receiving a query on my talk page about a possible issue, I located the source webpages and books was by going through the article sentence by sentence and Googling each sentence. The remaining content is likely clear of copyvio but I wonder if there's enough here for a separate article, as the topic is already covered at CAPTCHA — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. If I had to do that with each article I reviewed, wow. Any suggestions on a course of action so I don't miss these in the future? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Just watch out for prose that seems a little disproportionally professional or polished compared to other parts of the article; or phrases such as "we discovered", which sometimes slip in when copying others' research. I think that's how this one was spotted. You don't have to clean complex cases like this one, but do report them at

WP:CP for investigation. If you need help doing this just let me know. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk

) 15:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Please Add Belly Up! By Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show. I Work Really Hard At It. I Don't Remove Your Work If You Add Stuff On Wikipedia. Thanks Ben Ben2719941 (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to create an article regarding a song, please read the appropriate notability guidelines. While it meets a single requirement of

WP:NSONGS, it's a very weak case, #141 on the top 200 on a secondary chart (the main chart is the Billboard 100, which this song did not make), and the other chart is irrelevant.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Can You Please Add The Album Belly Up! by Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show For Me So You Can Show Me How To Do It Property. Thanks Ben Ben2719941 (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Re

Dicklyon - Didn't really care about the edit summary. While there are times I miss a copyvio tag which is due to a mirror site, this is not one of those times. Sometimes I will delete the offending copyvio, and request a revdel, but in this case, the copyvio was so extensive, I felt deleting the entire article was warranted. Please be more circumspect in leaving accusatory messages. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Why you cut several yumnaks (surnames) of this Clan. How to add it.Is it adding these yumnaks are not applicable in Wikipedia, Afingba Mangang (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Afingba Mangang - Because it was wholly uncited. You need to have a reliable source to show that they are truly yumnaks of those particular clans. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I honestly do NOT LIKE the way you do not consult me first before redirecting. It is disrespectful. However, I would like to see if the content you erased in the name of redirect may be included in one page named "JKT48 Member Elections". Please reply ASAP. Thanks. – Flix11 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Do NOT "ping" the User on his/her Talk. Stop shouting! Calm down! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't really care what you like. If you're going to be uncivil, don't write on my page again. We went through an AfD, wasting the time of numerous editors, just to show you that the information in those types of articles is trivial and non-notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine. Had hoped you would take the initiative and do the redirects yourself, but to no avail. You could include a paragraph on each in the target's redirect, but a separate article simply won't meet notability criteria. If you wish to add the material, it's not erased, simply look at the article's history and you can pull any relevant info from there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering why you keep reverting the page

Because the article went through an AfD, wherein the consensus was to redirect. Your continued recreation of the page could be construed disruptive editing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

How can I recreate this page? Does that mean that I can never edit this page again? If that is the case I would like to recreate a new page at least! Thanks for your response--Farjj (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi

CSD G4). This applies regardless of whether you wrote the original article. If you are uncertain whether your new article will adequately address the original reasons for deletion, you may wish to create a draft version of it in your sandbox and then request feedback at deletion review." Hope this helps.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

21:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969 Thank you --Farjj (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this doesn't appear to be a copyvio as the online content is a straightforward reproduction of Cullum's Register - this volume of which was published in 1891 so it's well out of copyright by now. Even the supplements quoted are pre-1924 so again copyright expired. It's a separate issue but I quite agree with removing the material as being difficult to read etc. Nthep (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nthep - Thanks for the follow-up. I looked at the source, and saw that it was copyrighted material, without understanding that they had taken it from somewhere else. I agree that the material, regardless of the copyright issue, needs a major re-write to be readable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Britishfinance. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Alex Barnes, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that, my mistake! kind regards, Britishfinance (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries, Britishfinance, it happens. I've even done it a few times myself... . Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969,

I saw you placed a suggestion on my page about converting the page to prose. I am not convinced I want to do this because I think this article is right in the middle of pros and lists. (Also in the near future images will be added). Would like to keep it as it is. Is that also oke?

If so, how do I remove the suggestion on top of the page?

Thanks for checking it by the way

Sincerely,

MarqyF --MarqyF (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi

WP:NOTRESUME, and this would fall under that category. The Awards and publications lists are fine to remain that way, although the awards needs to be trimmed to about half its size... get rid of all the non-notable awards. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

14:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I understand what you mean, but it will take me some time to re-write the texts. I hope that's oke. Kind regards, MarqyF (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ps: if you maybe have an example page that is concert good prose while also summing up things I would me much obliged MarqyF (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi One15969,

I changed the lists into prose and trimmed the Awards to only notable awards. If oke by you, can de suggestion on top of the page be removed?

Thank you! MarqyF (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarqyF - nice job. Removed the tag, but had to tag it with another one. While you have references, you are very light on footnotes. Footnotes help researchers understand where the different facts in the article come from. One of the knocks on WP is that so much stuff on here is inaccurate. Footnotes help dispel that notion. Keep up the good work.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi One15969, Thanks for your reply. I understand what you are saying about the footnotes, but the point is that next to the articles I refer to, the rest of the information is gathered by reading (unpublished) writings of Albert Szabo himself given to me by his heirs. I also talked to these heirs, also representatives of The Albert Szabo and Brenda Dyer Szabo Collection. I cannot really 'footnote' this because it is not-published information. How do you suggest I tackle this one? Sincere, MarqyF (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi

WP:OR. This is a huge no-no on Wikipedia. You must remove any information which does not come from a reliable, secondary source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research journal. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not what I mean. The information is all correct. I mean more that the summing up came from himself, he ordered it chronologically, but he actually was wat the article says, and all the experiences/awards etc are true. My point is: do I have to link to every education he did? Every position he had? I've seen many Wikipedia pages where it says 'mr x studied there and there', had a career there and there, with no reference whatsoever. So what do I do to make it right? MarqyF (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

MarqyF (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi

other stuff exists argument. Just because an article exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is necessarily a good model to base a new article on. Wikipedia is monitored by volunteers, so it's not unusual for an inappropriate article, or more frequently stuff included in an article, to slip through the cracks. Remember, a core principle of Wikipedia is that any information which is not cited can be removed immediately. If all the information in a single paragraph came from a single source, than a single footnote at the end of the paragraph is okay. But if the assertions come from disparate sources, then you need to footnote each fact. If you can't put a footnote to something, from a reliable source, it should be removed. Usually there is a bio page on these notable folks that you can link to which will cover the education/positions/awards. Again, anything you can't footnote should be removed. And finally, be aware that what I outline above is what I like to call best practices (which I base on what an article would go through in going for GA or FA status). You could walk away from the article right now, it's tagged for more footnotes, and other editors may (or may not) work on it. I just want to make sure that you haven't included original research in the article, that everything in the article came from the 3 sources listed at the bottom as references. Anything not in those 3 sources should be removed.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

16:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I noticed you've reverted several video game character articles back to their redirects lately, some under suspicion of being socks. Just wanted to confirm for you, they are sockmaster Raymondskie99. -- ferret (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ferret - Will keep my eye out. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

And ferret, just saw your comment on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Caulfield discussion. I have added a comment there, do you think it would be appropriate to close the AfD, and G5 the article?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Technically, he unredirected it, didn't create it, so I don't know if G5 is appropriate. Additionally, if the keeps are leaning as they are, it's just asking for a DRV and refund and it'll be back anyway. -- ferret (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Thought I'd throw it out there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi! You'd moved a student's work to the draftspace at

Hi ReaderofthePack- It looks like Bkissin has already very appropriately moved it into the mainspace. I've reviewed it, so it's good to go. Thanks for the effort. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• No problem! Thanks for moving it to the draftspace in the first place since it gave me a chance to improve it! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The Stellhorn article is ready to go into the main article space now. However, given your interest in the article I am starting a discussion here.

Rationale that it is ready: 1. It was never threatened with deletion in the first place, nor submitted for AfC as best as I can tell. It doesn't absolutely need to go through AfC. 2. In the last few weeks since you said it was under sourced, another user formatted the sources properly 3. You claimed that there were "virtually no independent sources"--this is too vague. Specifically, sources two and four are independent. The rest of the sources came from the denomination he was a leader in, or from a merged denomination that later included the body. Source one does not establish notability, but source four is from a Christian-topical encyclopedia--a tertiary source, and it is from a different denomination than the one that holds him as a leader. That is enough to establish notability. It is my understanding that general non-Lutheran protestant references from his lifetime to his theology/or to him do exist. I went and added one of them, so that would be source 9. It is an original book review by a third party reviewer of one of the Stellhorn's more significant books.

I am not a member of, or have I ever been, a member of a denomination that promotes Stellhorn or his theology. Nor am I paid by any Lutheran denomination. If you have some compelling reason it must stay in draft, let me know.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Correction, another user did submit it to AfC six days ago. I had not noticed this. Still, I would like to know if you will object to me moving directly it back do main article space if the person who submitted it is okay with that, too.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lithopsian (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lithopsian - any particular reason?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

No?!? I can only imagine edits got crossed. I reverted an edit back to a redirect and intended to curate the redirect. It has since been converted back to an article, so the point is probably moot. Lithopsian (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, Lithopsian - not sure if it's moot. I felt that the article had been split from another article (with abbreviated, but attribution), after it had originally been merged into the other article. In most cases, I would agree with restoring the redirect, however, in this instance most species deserve their own article. It has been restored as an article, but if you feel there is an overwhelming reason not to have a separate article, I'd love to hear them.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. At the time that I reverted, the article was simply an un-merge of the original short stub, so it was obvious to undo. Since then it has been much expanded and probably stands well as a separate article, although there is still duplication where it was previously merged to Dolichorhynchops. Species are generally considered notable enough for their own article, but this one is both extinct and dubious so there is certainly an argument to keep it merged. The previous merge was apparently not discussed, but also not disputed. Possibly a close connection to the subject, possibly merits discussion. Lithopsian (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Britishfinance. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Jukka Pohjola, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Britishfinance - any particular reason?

Sorry about this, I had a whole series of articles opened by that particular editor open and was fixing the talk pages and the stubs - they all had the same issues. I didn't realise you had patrolled one or two in the list just before I pressed the green button before closing them - my mistake! kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries... have done the same thing myself. Was just wondering if there was something I missed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Britishfinance. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Juho Suomalainen, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Same mistake by me here (as per above). sorry again. Britishfinance (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)