User talk:Onel5969/Archive 71

Hi DESiegel - Sometimes it's a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. I completely missed the reference to the village of that name. This editor had created a couple of dozen articles, and then over a hundred redirects to those articles. In each of those instances, the redirects were created to point to one of the items listed in lists within the article, so when checking, I went directly to those sections. Unfortunately, in the Birdwatching section, there is a forest named "Mitlal Afras". I fixed on that, thinking the redirect was a typo, and never checked the beginning of the article. My apologies.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Sagotreespirit. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Katie Branch (Reedy Fork tributary), 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.)

— Sagotreespirit (^talk) 03:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to have Sarvesh Amte reviewed. I created this page a while back, it has not been reviewed by anyone. Thanks User:Shubhamghodke3904 08:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

??? thanks --Caminoderoma (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at the current state of the draft about the Franz Marc Museum to see that it meets the requirements to be submited in the current form? I added several references from the German press and also a book.Mistico Dois (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice job Mistico Dois - I've reviewed it and moved it to mainspace.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I recently came across

I do not remember anything about them, but I possibly have not understood that the ward is only for local elections, otherwise it would be certainly notable. You can just AfD them and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi

WP:ISNOT which covered why an election wouldn't be allowed, regardless of size. So I tended to err on the side of inclusionism in this instance, since they were cited. But that's the rationale I've been using since. Let me know if there is consensus somewhere to say I'm a knucklehead on this.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

17:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Well I decided that I was being the knucklehead here because if you and Ymblanter marked them reviewed clearly I was in the wrong. Erring on the side of inclusion makes total sense but I'm going to go ahead and take it to AfD and see what happens. Thanks for the response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea Barkeep49 - can you do me a favor, and if I don't participate in the AfD, can you let me know the outcome? Or post the outcome on NPP talk? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

No promises but only because of my memory. I will do my best to circle back after there's an outcome. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

BTW Barkeep49, sometimes I think I'm brain dead. I'll simply add the AfD to my watchlist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkwell Ward, I guess we have our answer, Barkeep49. Should we post on NPP talk page? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Well I don't think anyone was really asking and you'd clearly decided this correctly. So if you think it would be helpful for sure, otherwise I'm just willing to accept that I was wrong (always a likely outcome given that you and Ymblanter were involved). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't think you were wrong

WP:OUTCOMES, where AfD decisions are publicized. Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me}

00:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I see the utility but I think it could be harmful in the big picture. If NPP marks something as reviewed it's very unlikely to be challenged. This means that a few !voters could be substantially altering our sense of notability on a wide scale. OUTCOMES is a useful NPP tool but is itself a treacherous essay that many dislike. I think letting individual reviewers make their own decisions - while certainly conferring with other NPP - is healthier in the longrun. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

As a courtesy I tagged you at User_talk:Scope_creep#Bonin_Bough SilvanJo (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Help! Nagorno-Karabakh War, this page is near to die :)--ჯეოMan (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi ჯეო - not sure what that other editor was attempting to do, but you could have reverted him yourself.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Page was deleted:seemed promotional. I wrote the page. Under those criteria, any page about a business, political party, person, etc. etc. etc. could be viewed as promotional. Generally Wikipedia is way behind on significant social trends (for example, Sina Drums and many other direct to patron artists). I have no financial or professional interest in Sina Drums so I don't care too much if the page is published or not. But, I don't think that Wikipedia is a community of archeologists, anyone who writes a page has a personal interest in the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBozemanMT (talk • contribs) 01:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You are incorrect,

neutral point of view. We have countless thousands of such articles. You wrote this overtly promotional, non-neutral sentence: "In June 2017, the web magazine 'Stars2Come' published a beautiful report entitled 'The Heartbeat Of Music, Sina' about Sina and her great musical abilities, her extraordinary talent and ability especially concerning her favourite musical instrument, the drums." Such a sentence will never be appropriate for an encylopedia article, and if you want to contribute to this encyclopedia, then you must learn to write neutrally and not promotionally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

01:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thought I had already thanked you for the above explanation, Cullen328, so thank you. Since I can't see deleted articles, and really don't remember this from a few months ago (I do a bit of reviewing), glad you took the time to write such a pithy, yet in-depth, response. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Several reviews, very grateful. LookLook36 (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries, LookLook36 - keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

When I reviewed the history I saw it was deleted for lack of sources not copyvio I was under the impression the copyvio was removed. I only restored and expanded the article with sources I did not write the plot summary, I readded it without any vio, but just to know there are a lot more revisions in the history which contained the copyvio plot. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Valoem - I knew it wasn't you who added the copyvio. The original copyvio had been removed, but when the article was worked on later, this new copyvio was added.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that you redirected Yūki Yoda back to Nogizaka46, citing notability concerns. However, Yoda does have an independent photobook, which became a national bestseller in Japan, topping Oricon's charts. She also starred in a live-action remake of Mob Psycho 100 outside of the group. Would this make her notable enough outside of the group to warrant an independent article? ◢   Ganbaruby!   (talk to me) 20:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I worked on the 2019 Muscogee (Creek) general elections article and noticed that you flagged the candidate qualification portion of the article as a blatant copyright violation. I understand why this rule is in place but I don't understand how it applies here. The candidate qualification information is a matter of fact no different than what is written in every wikipedia article on elections. Can you clarify how it is that this is a problem in this case and not so in for example the 2020 US presidential election page? Is it just a matter of formatting or is it a copyright violation to state candidate qualification? Would a rewrite of these qualifications in a paragraph format citing the Muscogee constitution remove the copyright concerns? Fadedcorgi (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi

WP:COPYVIO. You can't simply cut and paste from an outside source. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

01:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, thanks for the response. I guess my question still remains that if I'm trying to add the candidate qualification information, the only way I can do that is to copy it word by word from the Muscogee constitution. I can't rephrase the qualifications because they are particular and the phrasing of it is critical to understanding who is eligible and who isn't. I get what you mean about copying word by word but I imagine there has to be some sort of an exception when dealing with official government language that is coming from a nation's constitution no? In other words, how would you recommend having that information on the page which is an important component of it? Fadedcorgi (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fadedcorgi - I'm going to ping another editor, Diannaa, who might be better able to answer that question. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fadedcorgi The source webpage is marked as "Copyright Muscogee (Creek) Nation 2016 - All Rights Reserved". If you can't figure out a way to re-word the material in your own words, you will have to leave it out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa - That's what I thought, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I am reaching out in regard to your second revert of my edit to both the [Alborz Metro Station] and [Atmosfer Metro Station] articles. Currently Atmosfer redirects to Alborz. But Atmosfer is the newer and current name. That's why I copied the content of Alborz to Atmosfer, edited the name section accordingly and then set up the redirect from Alborz. Can you explain why you reverted my changes twice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grille Chompa (talk • contribs) 12:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Because what you did is called a cut and paste move, see

WP:G6.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. This information is super helpful. May I suggest you at least add some of that to your revert comments. As someone not familiar with that level of bureaucracy (even though a wiki oldtimer) it would be helpful to get directions on how to prevent falling into that cut and past reversal trap. Thanks again for your review. Grille Chompa (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Why did you have to redirect WPXB-LD to a list of Daystar affiliates? I am actually a WikiChef (who designs new pages), and that I am broken because you reverted and redirected WPXB-LD. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 11:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep wasting other editors' time by creating articles which don't meet notability criteria?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for helping me when I was a novice Wikipedian! I very much appreciated your help which has encouraged me to continue. Minard38 (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Minard38 - no worries. Thanks for the barnstar, and keep up the good work! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. You rolled back for notoriety only treated to patch. I was about to add the notoriety for marketnews plagiarism scandall and layoffs — covering both sides of pe firms owning news operations. Should I not bother? New to Wikipedia - pls advise. Thank you. CampbellCSmith (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi CampbellCSmith, since you are new, I would recommend using the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. I can move the article into draftspace for you, and there you can work on it, and have more experienced editors give you advice. But I do want to let you know that this can be a very time consuming process, sometimes taking months to get feedback.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok let’s do that. Thank you. CampbellCSmith (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I remind you that these two articles should not be treated as redirects - like CentralTime, I am also a Wikichef - a person who creates new Wikipedia articles. These are letters found in the Uzbek alphabet - the French, Russian and Uzbek Wikipedia has Oʻ; the Tatar Wikipedia also has Gʻ. Please kindly do not repeat your same mistake again. FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

if you are a "wikichef", then you should understand that uncited material may be removed at any time, and should not, as per

WP:BRD, be re-instated without valid references. A concept both you and CentralTime seem to have difficulty understanding. Until you provide sources, please do not re-add them.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

03:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

G` and O` has sources listed onto its bottom. You have not noticed the sources yet. Furthermore, why can

Vev (letter) be moved in draftspace?! Ah, you did not notice that a source has been placed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia (talk • contribs

) 03:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Both articles have a single source listed. And both sources do not even closely provide enough support to what you put in the article. Please, if you're going to be a "wikichef" (which is a joke, in case you didn't realize), at least learn the policies of WP.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, One15969, I see that the COI has been added back to this recently reviewed and approved article, and I have a question about having it removed again. I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia community, but it was my understanding that the COI flag is intended to ensure that the article is thoroughly reviewed for a neutral point of view, which it was by the reviewer, Utopes. Is it possible for you to review the article as well, and to remove the flag, if you determine that it complies with the Wikimedia content policies? Please advise, thank you. MBAWilbins (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi

WP:TEAHOUSE. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, One15969. When I was advised on the earliest drafts by the first editor, AngusWoof, his comment was that the COI tag was on "until a neutral editor has scrubbed the article". Utopes is a neutral editor with no COI who checked all of the citations and wrote, "Checked every source, and the article appears to be neutral, as claims are referenced. Removing COI tag." Because of that, could you please go back in and undo your addition of the tag? Please advise, thank you. MBAWilbins (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey MBAWilbins, thanks for reaching out to me! It appears that Onel5969 is correct here. While I did go through your newly created article and remove the wording that was not written in a neutral point of view, you still have a conflict of interest, as you have stated on your talk page. To quote directly from the tag, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." Now, you are the major contributor to the article, and you have stated that you have a close connection with the subject. While the article isn't necessarily biased, as the article has been edited to fit a neutral point of view, the conflict of interest is still present. Unless somebody else without a COI re-writes large portions of the article from scratch, I'm afraid the tag will have to stay. The tag doesn't mean it's a poor article, but it allows readers to be informed of the facts; a primary author has a close connection with a subject. (The reason that I removed the tag was to let other editors know that the article was reviewed for

WP:NPOV. Yet, you stated that you had a COI, so I should have left the tag on the page.) Utopes (talk

) 00:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

To double down on what Onel5969 suggested, asking for additional help at the

Teahouse might be a good start. Maybe somebody could offer you additional insight about COI editing and how to avoid bias in the future! Utopes (talk

) 00:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Utopes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, One15969 and Utopes. I circled back with the original editor, AngusWOOF, who suggested that “if they’ve scrubbed the article and checked for neutrality then they can fill in the connected contributor tag ‘checked by’ section on the talk page.”

I read the information in the COI tag link, (Learn more about when and how to remove this template message), and it states that “Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently”.

It is my hope that you will agree that the COI tag can be removed because the issue (neutral point of view) has been addressed.

I appreciate your time and attention to this article. MBAWilbins (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Prior to this cut & paste style, I tried to move the article to its designated call sign. But I can't because the call sign contains a redirect to its current article. Is there any other way to reverse their placings? _SUPER ^ASTIG 16:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely,

WP:G6 criteria, and state the page you want moved there (Gold FM 98.3). That way it preserves the edit history, which is why the cut and paste move isn't allowed.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

20:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, One15969, why do you delete all my page? The album entred in the italian chart so it respects one of the point to stay on WP, about the sources I insert those that I could put into. There aren't so much on Internet (and even not in English...) Kmo99 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2019 (CET)

Hi

WP:GNG, so if there are few sources regarding the album, it might not pass GNG. But my real issue was that over 90% of the article was uncited. Now, I think you translated it from the Italian WP, but English WP has different standards. Uncited material can be deleted at any time. If you have citations for the rest of the material in the article, that would help.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

20:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's right and I'm the one who write the 99% of the italian page. Ok I got it but, on Internet there aren't a lot of sources so I can put some others but they can't cover up all over my text. May I proceed rewriting the page with the notes? Kmo99 (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2019 (CET)

What you have to remember that on English WP, sourcing is very important. That's not the case on many of the other wikis. If there are enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources, than by all means go for it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I added more sources, could you gave a look at the page? I didn't add other text to avoid the elimination. Kmo99 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2019 (CET)

May I have permission to make the UNC-TV stations into separate articles (redirects)? CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 22:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Please stop draftification of the Armenian alphabet articles. The sources are literally LISTED - but you did not understand such language. Please do not repeat your very big mistake. Again. I have created this article so hard but then you had came and draftified this article the second time. Please, I kindly remind you to stop draftifying my articles. Thanks and do NOT draftifying my articles - it's you who did not understand Armenian-language sites... FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:DICDEF, would need to be turned into a redirect. There is nothing wrong with your writing, the articles are well-structured. But they are unsourced. Please do not add any unsourced information to your articles.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

10:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Why was Short U (Cyrillic) drafted, though? It's a much older article, with some sources (although it's [not] (added later) Double sharp (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC) well-sourced). Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Because it is not well-sourced. Just because it has 5 refs doesn't it make it well sourced. I've just removed all uncited material. I moved it to draft to allow FighterSoviet (or some other editor) an opportunity to work on it, since they have expressed an interest in these articles. But, I've simply now removed all uncited material. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's not well-sourced (apologies for missing the word "not", that was a typo). But according to

WP:DRAFTIFY that is insufficient reason to draftify it. This is not a new article and neither has there been an ongoing deletion discussion for it. I have restored the material you removed for Short U (Cyrillic) and added some sources. Double sharp (talk

) 17:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Armenian I could understand, and those articles could use significant work. However, many of the rarer Cyrillic letters are only used in a few languages, and so there is not all that much to write about them. Short U is one of them, but there are even rarer letters. Why aren't those drafted? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 18:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors, only for myself. When I review an article which is not sourced properly, I either draftify it so that the editor can work on it, or, if there is a valid target, I'll redirect it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)