User talk:Onel5969/Archive 98

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 86:January 2022

• Tony Gemignani
• User talk:Sarahinloes
• commons:User talk:Sarahinloes
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sarahinloes
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sarahinloes

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel, hope your doing good. Looks like we’ll have to just start an AfD or a talk page discussion regarding Oscars article.

Happy new year! The Optimistic One (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The Optimistic One - Hi and Happy New Year to you as well. Haven't been looking at my talk page. My bad, sorry. But I agree, the route to go would be afd. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm writing it here in case you don't get pings from Talk:Anti-Russian_violence_in_Chechnya_(1991–1994) for some reason. You mentioned WP:BRD in your revert. I had provided my reasoning for restoring the article before making any changes, so you are welcome to participate in the discussion there. Alaexis_¿question? 13:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Valereee. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Gyoniku soseji, and have marked it as unreviewed. 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.)

—valereee (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi valereee - any particular reason? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Um...I think I must have done something in error? I was reviewing, not unreviewing! :D Hm. What do you think I did? I was at NPP, checking articles for actual foods (rather than food companies or chefs or brands or whatever). —valereee (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi valereee - that happens, if we're both reviewing at/near the same time, I could have reviewed it, and then you didn't notice it was already reviewed, clicked "mark reviewed" but in reality were marking it unreviewed. Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss something. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you must be right -- I must have thought it wasn't reviewed and misclicked! —valereee (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I will look for more information, but this is not an easy one to find. Having it published will raise its notability and bring it to the attention of other qualified readers for improvement. BTW: I posted this story twice by mistake (within minutes of each other). I was not sure how to fix it, so a second one may be out there. Thanks for your help. Lord Milner (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

WP:GNG is about. Do searches of newspapers and books for articles about it. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

14:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Froglife94 - unfortunately, primary sources do not count towards notability. They simply show the place exists. You need several (at least 3) references from independent sources which go in-depth about the park. It's a state forest in Virginia, so I'm sure there's coverage out there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Where did that arbitrary rule come from? There are not 3 authoritative sources for this article, as I've stated. Froglife94 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Robert Kerber - you can put in a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I would do it for you, but I'm not sure of the translation as to which title is correct. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Onel5969. I've asked an admin in the meantime if she can solve this. Depending what her reply is, I might or might not get back to your kind offer, as I'm not sure in which category my move request belongs on said discussion page (I see it neither in the technical nor the controversial section). Best, Robert Kerber (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)RobertK.

It would be technical, since your claim is that the title change is uncontroversial, Robert Kerber. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello

WP:RMT#Administrator_needed Robert Kerber (talk

) 12:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Robert Kerber, it must have looked good, since DrVogel completed the move. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it in the meantime, thanks Robert Kerber (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

1. There might be one million reason for deleting an article, but you won't get your way if you instead resort to an invalid reason instead of those one million.
2. Deflate is not a valid target for redirecting AdvanceCOMP anyway.

- Waysidesc (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Your continued disruptive editing, as explained on your talk page, could get you blocked from editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The article was redirected as an alternative to proposed deletion. I consider restoring the article to be contesting the PROD, which means the article should go to AFD if there are policy issues with it. clpo13_(talk) 23:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. Once references are provided, then it can be evaluated for notability. But as per BURDEN, it should not be recreated. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

23:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clpo13: - I totally disagree with your logic here. A PROD has a limit of 7 day to object. Accepting an objection to a PROD 6 months later makes a mockery of the whole PROD system. That's akin to restoring articles that were deleted at AfD because an editor didn't comment at the AfD discussion. That aside, the problem, as already pointed out by Onel, is not notability but lack of referencing, as explained in the edit summaries. I would ask you to reconsider your edits to the article. --John B123 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

PRODs can be contested even after the article has been deleted per

WP:REFUND first, but the outcome would have been the same. If we want to be pedantic, the article wasn't even deleted via PROD, since it was unilaterally redirected after one day. That move by itself could be considered contesting the PROD. In any case, it's at AFD now, so the point is moot. clpo13_(talk

) 23:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a politicians answer. Because an issue has moved on doesn't make the original actions irrelevant. As you point out, the way to restore a previously deleted (or in this case redirected) article is via

WP:REFUND not just restoring it yourself. However, as the article wasn't redirected via PROD, then restoring it as a contested PROD was inappropriate. --John B123 (talk

) 00:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Waysidesc (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The sense why an article with sources about the romani people in montenegro is redirected to the romani page, I don't understand nor anyone else who is familiar with the matter.

The other romani groups in the balkans, such as north macedonia, bulgaria, serbia, kosovo and bosnia also have their own page. You could have added that the article could be improved but not revert to the general page of the romani people. Both are totally different.

--Nalanidil (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No answer is also an answer...

Oh now I see when I read the history through all the work on the page that some people have already tried to write about the roma pople from montenegro like me, and it was redirected every time by the same users to the general page of the romani... If it doesn't fit some users here in the english wikipedia, well then...they are enough other languages here in wikipedia to create the page about the roma people in montenegro.

Nalanidil (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello One15969

Many thanks for reviewing this article. This is an article on a living physician (doctor) who over last four decades has done yeoman service to the community of his city, has done great service to local Red Cross Society, Resurrected and maintained Museums and Memorials for those (including his freedom fighter father of renown) involved in the Indian Independence Movement against the British, Guided close to 250 + students in their MD Doctoral Dissertations as a Senior Professor of General Medicine and attended to the rehabilitation schemes of prison inmates at Bellary city at present with innovative ideas and schemes. His family (not just his illustrious father) have all served prison sentences under the British till Independence in 1947 and have later graced the political landscape both at Central and State level. I have collected enough number of online links to newspaper reportings and full length feature articles mentioning both father (Tekur Subramanyam) as well as his son (Tekur Ramanath). I have updated some Bibliography links today. I deeply resent the accusation about Conflicts of Interest and the like. I was neither his direct student (in Medicine) nor am I his relative (by blood). Nor Am I paid to write this. The reference / citation section looks slim because in an Eastern/ Indian Context, especially in cities outside the remit of the big metropolitan ones, very little gets recorded for posterity in print - even less so of people concerning themselves with social causes! I think it is high time Editors of Wikipedia STOP taking a quintessentially western approach to evaluating 'notability' and 'verifiable citations'.! It is frankly insulting to Eastern social workers and people in the public arena (like doctors) to have to 'prove' their worth to be written about in Wikipedia, when western pornstars have no problem getting full pages in their names. Please return the article to its LIVE setting. Short of us going to streets of Bellary city and interviewing people with a camera about Tekur Ramanath, it is virtually impossible to transcribe this man's dedication and life long efforts at social service on to a website!

Bugs2beatles 14:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Bugs2beatles

Sorry, but there are some pretty definitive signs that you have either a COI or UPE issue with this subject. The article is very well written, and I'm not commenting on its notability, as I haven't checked for that. But the UPE/COI is clear. If you want the article published, you need to go through AfC, so simply click on the link to submit for review. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

January songs

in friendship

Thank you for your good wishes! - Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics was on the Main page (DYK) and even made the stats. - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

And a happy New Year to you, Gerda Arendt. And congrats on the pic! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! 2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on the Durborough lemma that has been published on Wikipedia. I did a previous draft that has sources from my blog but that version was changed because of comments on these sources. So the draft can be ignored and will not be edited any longer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron van Dopperen (talk • contribs) 13:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for doing all those. Have a good day. Caro7200 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries Caro7200, keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reviews! Princess of Ara 18:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, Princess of Ara - keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yo. When I was browsing my phone, I saw that Habersetzer entry was brought to main page. The entry was original sent to draftspace by user Scope Creep. I recently put it waiting for draft review - and I was under impression it was cleared. Then you sent it to Draftspace again with the comments missing. What happened? -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yo, it was never actually reviewed by an AfC reviewer. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have put 1 + 1 together what had happened. But does this sort of thing happen often? It feels like you can game the system and harass people by doing moving flawed drafts to mainspace to reset the waiting time for the review. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there are AfC reviewers who focus on newer articles, so I don't think that's a concern. But hopefully I'll save you some time. I just took a look at it, and if I reviewed it, I'd reject it as is. There is a ton of uncited material in the article. You should provide those citations, and that will make it much easier to review. If you do that, and want me to take another look at it, just ping me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, can you please explain why you reverted my edit on Bad Gyal discography? She has got a long career. Now the section Bad Gyal#Discography is too long. I am mad because it took me days!, entire days making it just to be reverted by a 500,000-edit user simply citing "WP:SPLIT". 7szz (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SPLIT is the explanation. You should read it. The split meets neither of the two criteria as per the guidelines. In addition, even if it did, you did not provide correct attribution. Sorry if it makes you angry, but the guidelines are there for good reasons, and folks who edit on WP should familiarize themselves with them. And realize that no one can know everything, so it's okay to make a mistake. We all make them, but then we should learn from them so that we don't make the same mistake in the future and waste our time. Onel5969 ^{TT me}
  01:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I bring this to your attention, so that you might not continue with activity that can be so easily interpreted as either silly or rude. But otherwise, warm regards. WurmWoode^T 04:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Hi. Since you seem ignorant of WP policies and procedures, and do not seem able to leave civil comments, do not post on my talk page again. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you find Flag flying days in Poland to have to be a draft? It isn't, it is an article which is absolutely ready for the usual namespace. Please explain yourself, or I will move it back to the normal space without further ado. Ove Raul (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to move it back into mainspace. I will do it for you, but then it will be gutted, since it doesn't have a single source which meets

WP:CIT to see what is necessary in a citation in order for it to be a valid citation. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Why was it impossible for you to explain this when you made the move? Also, that's your personal opinion. There are a number of sources in the article. You should check them up. Ove Raul (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Onel5969, thanks for reviewing Felix Horetzky which I had created. You tagged the article with the "refimprove" template. Please explain to me what you missing. The article uses in a very transparent way (I think) all sources available about this musician. There are nine footnotes/references in this rather short article, and they are correct and exact. To quote directly from those sources (if that is what you want) would disturb the flow of reading with no benefit for the article whatsoever. I am therefore inclined to remove the template you have placed without changing the article, but would like to hear from you beforehand. Thanks. – Aklein62 (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Aklein62 - While there are sources and footnotes, large portions remain uncited, as well as several other smaller assertions. The large sections are the Works and Music sections, which are wholly unreferenced. And in the life section, there are several assertions without reference. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, User:Onel5969, I see what you mean. I can add a few references, but they will all link back to the same sources that I already used. I can also add online library catalogues from which I distilled the list of works. But all this is not the usual practice for composer work-lists on Wikipedia (check a few if you don't believe me). And while it would be possible to link each and every sentence to an original source, that is also highly unusual in WP articles generally (check self-critically if you do that in your own articles). It must suffice to write a paragraph or a group of sentences and close it with a footnote that links what has been said to a source. That is general practice in academic writing (and I do it for 30 years). – Aklein62 (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For reviewing a bunch of pages, old, and new. It's most likely a time consuming task, just sitting there, taking a brief look at the article, and pressing a button or not. But I don't know how reviewing articles (As in marking them as reviewed) works so it could be much more involved. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Blaze Wolf - it can be a bit of a bear, but someone's got to do it. If you're curious, here's a link to the flowchart we use when doing our review. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Tamingimpala. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Ace Edition, and have marked it as unreviewed. 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.)

Tame (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tamingimpala - any particular reason? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks so much for your review and comments on the artical

How do I see your review of the plane crash article you reviewed on Jan. 8 that I made, and if I can't, can you tell me how good it was?KingAviationKid (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2022 Winter Olympics Parade of Nations, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234 Removal of tags without correcting the deficiency in the article is disruptive editing, and could get you blocked. Please desist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Two references have been added in the last few minutes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

And it still needs more. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

With the release of the 25th season, the specials have been confirmed to have been the 24th season. There is a page for every season, there should be one for the 24th season too. Zvig47 (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, can you help me with some guidance on how I can get more 'citiations from reliable, independent sources'? And I don't see any COI issue in this article as I am not being paid by the subject. He happens to be an officer retired from the Army. I can verify all the information in the article to be true. Unfortunately, there aren't too many people who are editors on WP who would be able to independently verify that Information. It is a technicality that there aren't enough editors who know the subject. Can you please offer some guidance? Thanks in advance. Jonathanvarunbenjamin (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jonathanvarunbenjamin - there are indications that you are either an UPE editor or have a COI issue. Simply submit your article for review, and on your talk page or userpage explain your connection. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, I am surely by no means a UPE editor! There is no COI, either since the article mentions details of the subject's achievements in his field of work. I happen to be a student of the field of study wherein the person is a certified expert - probably one of only a handful PhD holders in the particular field. Hence, I seek your guidance on how to get this article out of edit. Your help is appreciated in advance. Thanks. Jonathanvarunbenjamin (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, there are clear indications of UPE/COI editing. The fact that you continue to deny it, makes me lean more to UPE than COI. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You provide NO basis for your allegations. How does that work on Wikipedia? Can you at least disclose ONE reason why you LEAN more towards UPE? This is absurd! Jonathanvarunbenjamin (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Also which are these "clear indications" ? If you could be a little clearer with your findings, maybe we can have a logical discussion?Jonathanvarunbenjamin (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I don't help COI/UPE editors figure out how to evade detection. And I lean towards UPE due to your attitude, and hesitancy to disclose your relationship. Usually COI editors will disclose the relationship, even unintentionally. While UPE editors either immediately disclose, or vehemently deny the connection. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

My 'relationship' is that I belong to the same Professional Organisation, though at a much lower level. The Organisation being the Indian Armed Forces, from which the Subject RETIRED in 2013. Jonathanvarunbenjamin (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please comment on the aforementioned? Jonathanvarunbenjamin (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still waiting for your comments on the issue. Thanks Jonathanvarunbenjamin (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I can appreciate why you reversed my recent change to this article on the grounds of 'Not enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG', and I have no great interest in improving the stub. However, the reason I had made the change was to solve the problem of a circular reference within the Beth Rogan article. Your change has now reintroduced that problem. Perhaps you could fix it? Masato.harada (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Masato.harada - fixed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, on my article Erin Saoirse Adair you said, i have to add references from independent sites. I have some reliable secondary sources like the Ottawa Citizen, the Fulcrum, CKCU-FM and Rogers TV. Best regards KatastrophenKommando (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi KatastrophenKommando - then add them to the article. But to meet notability criteria, they have to be in-depth about the subject, and should not be interviews (which are considered primary sources and don't go towards notability). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the information. I sadly found only these which are already in the article, but for example, the place in the Searchlight competition shows the relevance and that is written in the source without it being an interview. Before the interview, the author of the source gives more information about the artist, which is why the source is not just an interview. Warm greetings KatastrophenKommando (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you removed my Kheerat Panesar Wikipedia page, and I really don't understand why that has happened? — Preceding

Because the article showed no indication that this fictional character had any real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi but I don't believe what you are saying is true. The character is on a soap opera that is watched by approximately 5 million people. Not only that but the character has been involved in 2 prominent storylines that has been watched by a huge amount of viewers, as well as the fact that the actor who portrays the role has received an award for his services within the Asian British television society, which I believe voids your opinion. Other pages within the show such as Naomi Julien or Lorna Cartwright do not deserve to be up then since their characters have not had any real world notability either. — Preceding

None of which has anything to do with real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I noticed, that the way of communicating became more and more rough in both Wikipedia's. Many qualified people quit contributing articles to wikipedia for it is impossible to satisfy anyone. I quit to contribute to german and britisch Wikipedia any articles about heavy metal. I deleted all my drafts. I like the british people and I love to visit them, I love british landscapes and the british way of life and cornish cream tea or britsh beef, I like Iron Maiden and Paul Day, but it is waste of time to contribute anything to Wikipedia. Please delete this article or improve it - but do not mark it! Greetings from Germany and Yrs. sincerely - KEEP IT HARD AND HEAVY!Bockpeterteuto (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Onel5969 Why was the page I created deleted? What corrections should be made to the article? My page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Iliev_Roman_Lazarevich I would be grateful if you could help me edit the article correctly Thank you. Seorbm (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Responded to on their talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Hope you are doing well. Thank you for taking out time and checking the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lisa_Camillo which I moved to the article space but was reverted by you. I moved it just because I felt it was ready. I checked the previous comments and they were all about adding reliable/notable references and when I researched the topic, I found a lot of coverage about her including some renowned channels like Al Jazeera, The Australian, SBS. So I did relevant editing, removed the unsourced text, added references and moved it to the article space. I will be thankful if you check it again as I have resubmitted the article for review through AFC. Jamalahmadpk (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, seventeen days. Anyway, we have multiple reliable mainstream sources stating the album is hotly anticipated (A.V. Club, Paste, Pitchfork). If it were some tiny indie band from BFE I'd agree it's too soon, but Animal Collective that is not. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how you calculate mid-October to mid-January as 17 days. Whatever. The issue is that the sourcing does not show it passes

WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

18:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

17 days as of now, of course. And there's print coverage in Uncut and two reviews published already in The Wire and Mojo, according to this Reddit thread. Maybe I jumped the gun back in October but I did check Category:Upcoming albums and I didn't see how the routine coverage in most of those articles were at odds with my initial draft. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Recently we have had some disputes about content on

As I've said, as per

WP:BURDEN, once uncited information is removed, it cannot be re-introduced without providing valid sources. And uncited information can be removed at any time. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

22:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Because there is really no in-depth coverage about her from independent, reliable sources. The best coverage is about her and her husband, not her alone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969! You recently placed a "too many" primary sources tage on the article. Currently, 75% (i.e., 30 out of 40) of the sources are non-primary. What percentage would you deem acceptable? Thanks! It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Good morning, just as a courtesy, I'm letting you know that I'm going to remove the tag. The article has 30 out of 40 references that don't come from the subject's website. I am going to assume it was a good-faith mistake on your part. Cheers! It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello onel5969 Sir, Please Review the Rajeshwari Datta's article, your review will encourage me to edit and create more article. Thanks and regards.Sams321 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to find a solution as how to replace the redirect with an article, as I feel this topic deserves an article. Can you help me on how to raise a concern about the AFD discussion. Thank you. Matu11 (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Matu11, Explicit closed that discussion quite recently, in September. Which is why I restored the redirect. However, looking at the discussion it was sparsely attended, and I wonder if they would have considered that a "soft" delete/redirect, so I'm pinging them here to get their opinion. I will say that even if they agree that it was a "soft" close, which therefore would not make re-establishing the redirect perfunctory, your version of the article is not sourced well enough to pass GNG. I might suggest you create a draft and go through the AfC process. That way you can get help from experienced editors on what is needed for the article to be accepted into mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted my changes to Calm Down Cologne. Can I ask what makes this album non-notable vs their previous album

Hi. Nothing. Thanks for pointing that out. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. You reverted my creation of the page "identity type". Your terse comment was "not enough sourcing to pass wp:verify". First, the newly created page had citations. As many citations as the page it was redirected to! I have added more citation, in the hope of satisfying you.

FYI, the other types of type theory already have their own pages: empty type, unit type, product type, sum type, inductive types, etc.. AND the identity type is a focus of on going research in type theory. Homotopy Type Theory and Cubical Type Theory are completely focused on this type. It deserves its own page.

If you revert again, please put a lengthy comment on the identity type talk page, so that I can understand your complaints.

Mdnahas (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed unsourced material since apparently you had difficulty discerning what was unsourced. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that you moved Moinak Dutta to Draft:Moinak_Dutta_2. There is already an identical, so far as I can see, draft at Draft:Moinak_Dutta, which has been sent for review and quite rightly rejected. I'm not sure WP really needs both drafts, but I don't know what the procedure is in this situation? To be honest, I found the main-space version this morning and was about to prod it as it's supported only by unreliable sources and I couldn't find anything better with Google, but I felt a bit bad about doing so because the editor who created it has only created one other article, and that's been sent to AfD today. I still feel Moinak Dutta probably isn't notable, and neither draft has much hope of making it into WP unless the reviewer is having a sleepy day. The article also seems maybe promotional. What should I have done? Elemimele (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Elemimele. The article was written by a UPE editor, and so moved to mainspace. I've requested it to be deleted, as you are correct, there should only be a single draft. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out! Have a great weekend, Elemimele (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The organization Shrimad Rajchandra Love and Care is an NGO that currently has 108 centers around the world - with active projects. It is a legitimate organization that requires its own independent page because its activities are separate from the spiritual activities carried out by its sister organization.

Redirecting it would be a mistake. There are thousands of articles written over the past 10 years in multiple countries by multiple world leaders about Shrimad Rajchandra Love and Care. Please revert it back to the way it was. I was trying to rename it to Shrimad Rajchandra Love and Care but because I'm a newb, I wasn't able to properly do it. I am not copying & pasting data. All the data is uniquely written, you can cross check with plagiarism software. Thank you for understanding. Dmehta81 (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. In order to show that the organization passes notability criteria there have to be several in-depth pieces about the organization from independent, reliable sources. Which your article is lacking. Might I suggest you create it in draft, and go through the AfC process, where experienced editors can help you craft the article until it is suitable for publication. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, can you tell me how to create it in draft, I'll do that and also how do I invite other editors to edit the page? I'm aware that you require journal articles for pages, and one of the entities Shrimad Rajchandra Hospital, part of their umbrella organization has conducted medical experiments that have been referenced in independent primary medical journals in 2020-21. But for the main organization, are news articles not considered primary? In the case of other NGOs that I've noticed - several exist that have little to no consistent initiatives. I became aware of Shrimad Rajchandra Love and Care because of their global reach and presence. I've seen firsthand some of the activities like free books distribution to tribals, some others like setting up free food refrigerators in Dubai, delivering food to stranded laborers in India at the beginning of COVID - just to name a few. Listing the NGO helps it gain credibility. So that was the goal. Would the Guidestar rating not be a primary source that Wiki accepts? Please help.Dmehta81 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel,

You erroneously deleted our page for infringing copyright. A copyleft (Creative Commons) license notice is clearly visible on the website which you claim our page infringes and this notice *was* present prior to the time of speedy deletion.

Regarding content veracity: Our page's various statements make reference to other stable Wikipedia pages which make the same or similar statements (e.g. about Internet Exchange Points) as well as third party sources which are (1) credible globally and (2) credible in Uganda. Note that it can be difficult to include references to globally renown sources about Uganda's Internet infrastructure due to Uganda's relative obscurity in the global Internet ecosystem.

There are also numerous other pages related to Internet Exchange Points which make similar statements with a similar (or lesser) array of sources:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda_Internet_Exchange
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Internet_Exchange
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_Internet_Exchange
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana_Internet_Exchange
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botswana_Internet_Exchange
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzania_Internet_eXchange

I hope it is now clear that (a) our page does not infringe anyone's copyright and that (b) its contents meet or exceed the standards Wikipedia has applied to other articles on the same subject matter.

Regards,
Kyle Spencer (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kylespencer: https://uixp.co.ug seems to be licenced under CC BY-SA 3.0. That does not mean that you can copy the content freely. Under the terms of that licence attribution is required. As you have not provided such an attribution then it's a copyright violation.

Your use of 'our' when referring to the article suggests you have connections to Uganda Internet Exchange Point, which would be a

conflict of interest. This is confirmed at https://uixp.co.ug/about which lists you as chairman. --John B123 (talk

) 12:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Your page was not deleted. It was moved into draftspace. It was moved into draftspace because you have an obvious

WP:COI conflict, which was explained to you the first time it was moved. Do not move it back into mainspace again, it could lead to you getting blocked. You must submit it for review, and as a UPE/COI you should never edit the article directly if and when it is moved into mainspace, but should request changes you would like to see on the talkpage. Right now it's clear that you are only creating the article for advertising purposes, which is not what WP is for.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969:

1. You first deleted the page for a copyright infringement despite the obvious presence of a copyleft license and my valid formal objection. It was (and is) obvious that I control the copyright of the source material and that I am willing to adjust the license to make it available on Wikipedia.



2. You then reverted the restored page to a "draft" state claiming that it was insufficiently sourced until I pointed out (rightly) that it's equally or better sourced than most other pages related to individual Internet Exchange Points (IXPs).



3. You then reverted the restored page to a "draft" state again, claiming that I (the author) have a conflict of interest. This is irrelevant for multiple reasons:
   • It is provable that the UIXP exists using the sources we provided;
   • It is provable that the UIXP has been the sole provider of this particular type of critical national infrastructure since 2001 using the sources we provided;
   • It is provable that the UIXP plays a notable role in Uganda's telecommunications ecosystem using the sources we provided;
   • It is provable that the content of the page is similar or identical to other Wikipedia pages related to individual IXPs;
   • It is provable that the content of the page is corroborated by the general article related to IXPs;
   • Due to the relatively obscure nature of the IXP industry, it is likely (and possibly provable) that most (or all) other pages related to IXPs have been authored by the people who are directly involved in the organizations which those pages are about.

Unless you and/or Wikipedia intend to apply the same standards to all similar pages, it is hard to interpret your moderation as fair. This particular Wikipedia page was created as part of an effort to better document Uganda's telecommunications ecosystem and its history. If you have a specific complaint about specific verbiage within the page, feel free to suggest specific modifications. I also recommend that you educate yourself about Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) before taking any further action on pages related to this subject.

In the near future I will implement an even more permissive copyleft license on our website and augment the Wikipedia page with additional sources that render the COI accusation even more irrelevant than it already is. If you delete the page again, revert it to draft, or block my account, I will escalate using Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms.

Kyle Spencer (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @

not using promotional language your next step is to click the blue button that says "Submit draft". This will submit it for review by an independent Wikipedia editor. I hope this helps. If not please let me know what other questions you might have. Barkeep49 (talk

) 23:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't add redirect in

Actually, it does. It was just redirected as a result of an AfD discussion. You don't get to unilaterally override community consensus. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969 -- I declined this G11 as I thought the content might be salvageable but the more I look at it the less I like it. It appears to be a good-faith student editor (JayKassis), rather than a paid contribution, but I suspect the student has now moved on. I would not oppose a prod on this. @Ian (Wiki Ed): for another opinion. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Espresso Addict. It looks like it's a Belgian company, and the school is in Canada, so I suspect it's just an interested user. That said, if it's not encyclopaedic, there's no obligation to keep it. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969 , Please take your 2 minute on this article Draft:Sheetal Tiwari. Thanks. PangolinPedia (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Please don't move to draftspace the articles that I created. These are ready for mainspace. --Hajoon0102 💬 01:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

They aren't even close to being ready for mainspace. Please don't make crappy articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Article of a singer Naresh Narayan X0BiT111 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

A message was left on your talk page. Which you actually responded to.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Onel5969, this is Derivator2017 here, I guess you're familiar with me. Just here to say that I really a appreciate you for reviewing my articles. It's always a pleasure to have your articles reviewed by a veteran editor. However, it apparently seems like not everyone enjoys seeing me on this platform. I have recently created an article,

Hi

WP:CANVASSING. You shouldn't do that, as much as you may feel that a discussion/argument is not going your way. I've felt it many times, but as soon as you canvass, you lose credibility, and there are some editors which will look for reasons to vote against your position. Regardless of the outcome, don't let it get to you. Just move on to something else. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

22:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello - if I've understood the history correctly you have moved "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dorset_%26_Wilts_2_Central" which I created to Drafts. The reason given is that it doesn't have sources / references but there is a hyperlink on the page to the RFU Results website which shows this league exists and the teams involved etc. The only began in September 2021 so it is new - there are no previous winners or other third party information sources - this is community rugby in England, it doesn't get articles on well known websites or media attention. I don't know how else to prove it's genuine. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rugby_union_system page includes dozens of pages identical to this one, the only difference is most leagues have been in existence for some time. I would appreciate it if the page could be reinstated. Thank you in advance for your time / assistance.

Hi

WP:TOOSOON, and this is more than likely a case of that. Once there are about 3 references which are in-depth about the league, from independent, reliable sources, incorporate them into the article and submit it. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

22:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi onel5969. Thank you for coming back to me and I note what you say. I guess I can only reiterate my comments above, the league was new in 2021 and simply doesn't get in-depth coverage at least not from "independent, reliable sources" in the sense that it'll never appear in a national newspaper or on BBC Sport and so on - this is community rugby which by its nature only has limited reach / appeal from a journalistic point of view but it matters to the clubs participating, players / coaches / supporters / sponsors etc, so it's notable to them. I would reiterate, it is no different to almost every other amateur rugby league in England which appears under the WP 'English rugby union system' tab - only the top three or four tiers get any discernible press coverage, everything below is limited to club websites etc which perhaps don't meet the independent / reliable threshold. Anyway, I hope you might reconsider on that basis. Thank you for the tip re my signature, I will try here and hope it works! MaxPower2017MaxPower2017 (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed you reviewing my several articles. Thanks! I have a question regarding the approval mechanism. Sometimes, someone reviews a newly created article and the creator receives a notification, "The page has been reviewed", then the articles goes live on google. But sometimes, no one reviews an article, but it still becomes live within 30 - 40 days. What's the mechanism here? Sorry to bother you but I'm just curious. Insight 3 (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"Stale" articles to review automatically go live after 90 days. That's why I focus on the "back of the queue", the oldest articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your answer. Insight 3 (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Your username is one I see so very often in my notifications. I have created quite a large number of articles, many of which you've reviewed, and I plan on creating even more. In retrospect, some of the articles I published on the mainspace have had quite a few issues. I was wondering if you had any tips for me as I don't want to be churning out sub-par articles. Are there any common mistakes you've noticed while reviewing my pages? Are there any minor things I could do to make the reviewal process more easy, and to make sure every article I create is top notch? I appreciate your time! Mooonswimmer 19:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

WP:CORPDEPTH). But over the next day or two, I'll look at your articles and give you more specific pointers. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

10:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response Onel5969! I'd say the last 20 or so articles are representative of my current work. I'll be reviewing every article I have created to make any necessary changes, or to have a few problematic ones deleted. I've been trying my best to avoid non-notable subjects as well as things like citation overkill, unnecessary infoboxes, citing interviews, etc... I have a few specific issues you might be able to help me out with.

1. Do you think the Sunion is notable? It has received ample coverage in at least 3 reliable, independent sources, but I'm still having second thoughts. Also, where can I discuss the notability/value of a subject before ::creating the respective article?
2. Are articles like Sargon Lazar Slewa too short?
3. In "Bibliography" sections, such as that of
   Jean Raymond Tournoux
   , should I cite each book's ISBN?
4. When it comes to films with original titles in a foreign language, what is preferred: "Original title", "English title", "Original title (English title)", or "English title (Original title)" ? If one of the latter two, when hyperlinking, should I link to both? And in cases where a film has no official, mainstream English title, should I translate the native one or leave it as it is?

Again, I appreciate your time! Mooonswimmer 12:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so let me take your list above first.

1. Yes. Lots of coverage about this new varient. Nicely written and sourced.
2. No. As long as an article meets notability requirements, even if it is a single line long, it is not too short. The one exception to this is that if the article is simply a dictionary definition (see
   WP:DICDEF
   ).
3. In short, no, but I always add ISBN numbers when available. Remember that WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so the more detailed the citation reference, the better.
4. Yes, except when the foreign language title is well known in English (e.g.
   WP:ENGLISH

BTW, all excellent questions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Now,

WP:NACTOR, and the one in-depth ref (the same as in her husband's article) is not enough to show she meets notability. There is another nice ref, at least on the surface, this one

, until you realize this is a press release, therefore is worthless for notability or reliability. So I've tagged it for notability, in the hopes that the referencing will be improved. If it isn't improved within a few weeks or so, there's the chance it will get redirected to the husband's article, which is a valid target, or moved into draftspace.

Those are just the two I came across today. I will go back over others and see if I can come up with any other suggestions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you again! I will definitely be revising the large number of articles covering African films and entertainers I created during that period. I've learned a bit more about sourcing, and have some stylistic improvements to make. You are certainly aware of the difference in quality when it comes to media infrastructure in many African, Asian and Latin American countries. This often makes clearing the WP:NOTABILITY bar a bit difficult, despite many actors and filmmakers being "notable" in their native countries. Even for the films themselves, it is much more difficult to demonstrate their notability, even when they're produced by the country's national studio and when they're "household/cult films" in their respective countries.

For example, Touria Alaoui is a household name in Morocco. She has starred in a large number of Moroccan feature/television films and series. Shortly after I created her article, she was honored at a large national film festival.[1]. However, there isn't much significant coverage of her. Most of the articles I could use as sources simply mention her receiving an award or being honored at X film festival. I will try to improve the referencing as soon as possible and hope you will be able to reassess the updated article, as I could then use your assessment to improve the score of weakly sourced Moroccan/African film articles. Mooonswimmer 14:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so here are some others:

WP:NCREATIVE, but sourcing is the issue. Virtually all the sourcing is simple listings (which shows he meets the two SNGs), but the only in-depth source is this one

, however, that's an interview, which is a primary source, and therefore does not go to GNG.

WP:NCREATIVE

, but the issue is with the sourcing. The current sources, 1, 3 and 5 are all primary sources. 2 & 6 are simple listings. Ref #2 is the type of in-depth coverage from an independent source we're looking for.

Before the Dying of the Light - with the pieces from Variety and The New York Times, clearly meets notability criteria. With the material available, this would be nice to be expanded.

Mokhtar Chorfi - currently not a single in-depth reference. And with only a single film, doesn't appear to meet any of the SNGs. I've tagged it with notability concerns, and it could get deleted if not improved.

Finally, regarding your comments on Touria Alaoui, don't confuse "well-known" with what WP considers notable. My father could be one of the most well-known person in New Jersey (and for a while, he was), but unless there is in-depth coverage about them, they do not meet GNG. As I go through reviews of other of your articles, I'll leave notes on their talk pages. But thank you for your contributions, and for your willingness to learn. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, looking back at those articles, I can definitely see the need for better sourcing and expansion. I'll PROD any problematic articles. Thank you for your advice and your dedication to Wikipedia. Mooonswimmer 14:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello again Onel5969! What do you think of "Quotes" sections in biography articles? For example: Story Musgrave#Quotes Mooonswimmer 11:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a big fan,

MLK's "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Or Chief Joseph's "I will fight no more forever". And even then, I think the way to handle the quote is to incorporate it into the text, in order to give it context. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

11:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

How should one proceed? I come across them often in otherwise very well-written and well-cited articles. Should I remove the section and note "Better suited for Wikiquotes" in my edit summary? Should I add a "Not written in encyclopedic tone..." maintenance tag? Or should I just leave the section as it is? None of the quotes are quite remarkable. And in similar vein, does including a book's chapters in its article also full under [WP:INDISCRIMINATE]? See The_Sports_Gene#Overview. Thanks again. Mooonswimmer 12:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It's really up to you,

WP:INDISCRIMINATE" note in the edit summary. But it's not something I would lose sleep over. They weaken an encyclopedia, and therefore shouldn't be there, but the truth is, there are a lot of crappy articles out there. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

(Standard notification: You are involved in related discussions, you are not the subject of any COI, thankyou) —Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Djm-leighpark - I tend not to participate in those. No reason to teach UPE editors what we look for so that they can get better at circumventing WP rules. There are very specific clear indications of COI/UPE editing. I'm actually not one of the better reviewers regarding this, as I probably let too many slide, I only tag the extremely obvious ones. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If this is the case, and it may well be, hopefully the jockey's at COI recognise the same things and do a simple immediate block. thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of what sort of sources you'd want for this? I'm not sure what additional information I could add to the article. Thematthewmurray (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hello. Since you are either a

WP:COI editor, please follow the instructions on those pages. Create a draft, submit it for review, and deal with the COI/UPE issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

10:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

First COPYVIO is a serious issue on WP, and could lead to editors getting permanently blocked from editing. Second, reporting copyvio requires no discussion with other editors. It must be removed immediately. If you intend to continue editing on WP you should learn this quickly. Third, I did provide an explanation in the REVDEL request. Finally, the correct action has been taken and the copyvio has been removed. Another editor has left an appropriate response at that talk page. It's a shame other people's work got caught up in the copyvio mess, but especially since the copyvio was noticed and the appropriate action was not taken.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Onel5969, I would have to wholeheartedly agree with Webenji. I'm quite appalled by your drastic moves, wild accusations and total failure to communicate. I would go so far as to argue that your actions border on uncivil and vandalism, accusing us to be paid editors and removing entire pages without bothering to discuss. You didn't even follow policy when you did it, which is further glaring. You know better than to ignore communication. Please explain yourself.JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

And I am quite appalled by your uncivil comments on this talk page. Unless you can be civil and constructive, don't post on my talk page again. And you obviously have no concept of WP policy and procedure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, could you kindly help me to understand why you have put an undisclosed paid tag to Ruwanthi Gajadeera page. I consulted many Wikipedia veterans and read some GA and VGA as well as joined discussions on Wikipedia Teahouse to improve my writing especially in terms of NPOV, if you check the page history you will see how the page narrative improved over time and how I considered all the feedback that was given to me. It has always been on my bucket list to contribute a page to Wikipedia and I thought of creating a page for a local fashion designer in Sri Lanka as she brought a lot of international attention to Sri Lanka recently with her international accolades. I didn’t receive any money for this contribution nor for any edits I’ve done on Wiki in the past. If you could point Liyamu21 (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I've posted a response on the article's talk page. While I AGF your denial of UPE, it's obvious that you have a relationship to the article's subject, so that needs to be explained. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Good morning from little Coreca, I am writing to greet you and to know how you are. I'm doing pretty well for now, I've had a little bit to do in real life leaving out the commitments on Wikipedia, anyway I wanted to ask you how we can solve the Dado Coletti thing. Far be it from me to be a paid user or conflicts of interest. I love, respect and collaborate with various editions, dispassionately but with a lot of seriousness and dedication. I am not perfect with English and some other languages I admit, but I really want to learn day after day, article after article. Well, waiting for your news, thank you and greetings from the great little community of Coreca. Thanks again for your input and warning. See you soon!--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For your helpful feedback, sometimes I think myself very proficient in policy then again I am reminded that there are editors more advanced, and you have just proved that by the feedback you gave me. I’m thankful I’ve had the chance to not just learn under you during my early days but also that I have the privilege to watch you edit. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I can’t thank you enough for not just sharing your ideas, you also pointed me in the right place to go, I’m really glad I had you as a mentor during my early days, TBH, This AFD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titi Kuti had me doubting my own abilities, but thanks to you, the ever gracious Novem Linguae & the ever brilliant ONUnicorn for also sharing their ideas (which were also in accordance with policy) with me. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Onel was my NPP school trainer, so allow me to also thank Onel. There would be no Novem notability ideas without the excellent foundation Onel provided :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I can relate to you, without Praxidicae, Barkeep49, One1, Serial Number 54129, Rosguill & MER-C, there would be no Celestina007, they literally created me. Celestina007 (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I genuinely have to ask, how is a model who has been on the cover of American Vogue no less, lacking in notability? That's strange. Trillfendi (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Point me to the notability guideline that says that a model who has been on the cover of Vogue is notable. Oh, wait, there isn't one.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the Ricardo Lombana article which you had issues with and expanded it so it should be acceptable to stay now I hope! Thanks for giving me the kick to get it done :) Lankyant (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice job Lankyant. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

About the notability of John Millan: I have cited books, and added a link to his portrait in the British Museum. The quote shows Millan was respected by other booksellers of his day. His successor, Thomas Egerton, was the first to publish Jane Austen's novels.

The entry on World Cat, Millan, John -1782 lists:

• Works: 171 works in 577 publications in 1 language and 5,134 library holdings
• Genres: Registers (Lists) Directories Field guides Pictorial works Naval history
• Roles: Author, Printer, Bookseller, Editor, Publisher

The book Millan's Lists of the Parliament. Containing The Lords with their Posts, ... Counties, Cities, etc., their members, etc lists members of the government, as does Wikipedia today: List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election.

Wikipedia is created by volunteers who work on it as and when they can, and I will add this in due course. The page already has links, including to the British Museum - and citations.

Also, there is far less source material available for the 18th century than for more recent times. Unless someone was wealthy, few records remain. This means that there will be fewer references, but this does not mean someone lacks notability. As with Wikipedia needing a host, the books would not exist without printers and publishers.Kylenano (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

He very well might be notable. However, in its current state, notability is questionable. That's why it got tagged. The tag is there for other editors to perhaps take up the mantle and further expand it, thus showing it passes

WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Would showing that FT8 is by far the most popular ham radio HF mode be enough for it to have its own article? --Qslcard (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The criteria for a stand alone article on Wikipedia is

WP:SPLITOUT. - LuckyLouie (talk

) 14:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that detailed explanation,

WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. That shouldn't be hard to find three reliable sources. --Qslcard (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Would https://lwn.net/Articles/868309/ be a good source? Qslcard (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That does not appear to be a reliable source.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Is LWN an unreliable source in general, or is there a particular reason that article is unreliable? Qslcard (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Qslcard - Yeah, it's not a reliable source, period, since it doesn't meet WP standards for editorial oversight. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Where are those standards? I didn't see anything in

WP:RS that would make LWN a bad source. (I'm not trying to argue, I just want to learn how to identify good sources.) --Qslcard (talk

) 01:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The overview of RS reads, "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." When a source has a contributor policy like that found at author guide for LWN, that shows a lack of true editorial oversight. While it's not as devoid of oversight as something like WP, which is handled by volunteers, it's not the type of source which would equal something like a peer-reviewed journal. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Sasikala also called as VKs sir 2409:4072:6C98:DE22:0:0:5F48:EB00 (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Every claim in the article is carefully and and accurately sourced. Can you please explain what is wrong with the article? Dovidroth (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, currently it has zero valid sources. Please see

WP:GNG. Another very experienced editor has already declined it at AfC. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)