User talk:Onel5969/Archive 99

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 87:February 2022

Hi Onel! First of all, I hope you are doing well wherever you are, and second of all, I just wanted to thank you for reviewing my article. I was very nervous since it was my first article, and now I can relax haha.

Best regards from Chile, Felipe Carvajal Brown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcarvajalbrown (talk • contribs) 15:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Onel. I noted your new tag on this article, created by me, and recently approved and posted up.

I have no objection to your post, but I'm just a little puzzled as to why six different sources is considered too few for such a short article. There are much longer articles which quote only one source, or even none. Is there any reference-point in the Wiki guidelines as to how many sources one should aim at? Valetude (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Valetude - first, when you leave a comment asking about an article, please leave a link to that article. Second, regarding your question, the # of citations is irrelevant, but that everything in the article be cited. There are quite a few things in that article which have no citations. This also helps protect your hard work, since uncited material may be removed at any time. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you reverted

Hi BornGabe - as per AfD means as per Articles for Deletion. In other words a discussion was had amongst editors and it was decided that the subject was not notable enough for an article. In addition, looking at the sources you provided, there is only 1 in-depth article about the album from an independent reliable source (the Blabbermouth review), so would not pass another discussion. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969. Thanks for your time and efforts in reviewing this article. However, I observe that speedy deletion tag had been placed on this articele. As its a statutory organisation under Government of India, its written for informational use of wider public. Request you to kindly guide if its not following Wikipedia policy but if it meets requirements kindly remove the tag so that it can be used for wider public. Thanking you. Gardenkur (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gardenkur - Even if the article was about something of unquestionable notability, say, The New York Times, if all the article did was simply promote the newspaper, then it would be subject to deletion. You have to write the article about the subject, not promoting it. Get rid of any "objectives", and then I would re-write the "initiatives" section into prose, rather than list, and simply make sure the citations back up the statements. I started the process of transitioning the second portion to give you an idea. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969. I thank you for your suggestions and see that I follow your suggestions in future in all my articles. With vast experience you have I respect your guidance. Thanks a lot again for this favour and will get back to you soon after recommended changes. Gardenkur (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Dear

I have gone back in and I have tried to fix my Kearis Jackson article by adding better references and removing the ESPN references etc. Please respond asap so I can fix the article based on how much more you think I should do. I want to work to come to a satisfying conclusion. Thanks! BullDawg2021 (talk)

Hi

WP:COLLATH. I prodded it due to the fact that it was tagged for improvement for a month, without anything being done to attempt to fix the article. Unless better, in-depth sourcing is added to the article, it will probably end up at AfD. Third, there is nothing wrong with the ESPN references, other than their lack of depth of coverage. It wasn't your sources, but the lack of in-depth coverage about the subject. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

11:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Repeated recreation of Lovejoy (band) despite consensus. Thank you. wizzito | say hello! 01:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, you reverted my edit with adding an article and changing

Sure. The AfD occurred in 2016, and nothing new has happened since then. The popularity of a channel might indicate notability for the channel, not necessarily for the man. In addition, other than the BIO1E, your version was mostly sourced by primary sources or unreliable sources (e.g. twitter, instagram, youtube, linked in). Hope this explains it better. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to bring this back to my sandbox, and try and put in more RS's in order to fulfill notability guidelines better. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Onel5969. Why did it get reverted? Is it because I made it in a redirect page? Or is it because you don’t think it was valid? If it’s the former, then it’s because I was worried when I made it myself it was gonna make and error or link the redirect instead. If the latter, I’m sure it is valid. I am sure the Sphingidae Taxonomic Inventory is a trusted source, and there was even a study. If there is anyway I can resubmit this, please answer and thank you in advance. Mcatto (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Monarchatto Mcatto (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

As was said in the edit summary, it was because it was a copyright violation (COPYVIO). WP takes copyright infringement very seriously, so please refrain from doing so, as it could get you blocked. See

WP:COPYVIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Hajoon0102. I noticed that you recently removed content from Samsung Galaxy A13 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Hajoon0102 💬 14:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. I explained completely why, there are not enough in-depth sources from independent sites to show it passes

WP:GNG. Sorry if that is too difficult for you to comprehend. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

User:onel5969 Good day, thank you for your suggestion and feedback. Duly noted. There have been by myself and with other Wikipedia users/editors a total of 7 reliable and independent sourced citations submitted to the Brandon Lorenzo article. Please provide feedback as you've moved this article to drafts. Thank you kindly. WikiHuman2021 WikiHuman2021 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed all the uncited material to give you an idea of what it was lacking, virtually gutting the article, which is something I didn't want to do, which is why I moved it into draftspace for you to work on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your diligence, but I would like to understand why there is (maybe not only from you but possibly other editors) constant effort to continuously revert the changes on creating this page, especially due to this journal being a critical part of American history, specifically the oldest and longest running journal covering intellectual property (and founded in 1918). Do you suggest creating it in that alternate test space first? I just want to understand what you and these other editors take issue with is all before proceeding, and would like to get your blessing to create this page.

There would be no issue with you creating it in draft space and working on it there. However, while there is not a question of notability regarding the journal, there is the question, why? Why does WP need a single line article about a journal, which is already covered in another very short article about the organization? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

User:onel5969 Why was this article moved to draft? All listed sources are top media houses in India. What more sources are expected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaisonAbeySabu (talk • contribs) 11:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It was explained in the edit summary, you appear to have some connection with the article's subject, so you should take a look at

WP:COI to see how you can comply with WP guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

11:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You deleted/ redirected my Wikipedia page. Why did you do that. This is Alexander DeVoe I would like my page restored 2603:8001:7C3F:B632:64F7:7140:35F0:964E (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969, I hope you doing great ? I see you review articles I created on the wikipedia platform. Just want to say thank you for your remark, I do appreciate and hoping to create more good articles in the future.--Gabriel601 (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello again!

Could you assess this article and give me some feedback whenever you have the time? I thought it would be a better idea for me to focalize a bit when creating articles so as to learn the ins and outs a bit more efficiently. This week, I'm considering creating articles for a number of notable musicians slated to perform at this year's Coachella.

Loraine James is notable, that's for sure, and I like to think I did a pretty good job with the article. But I'm certain there's room for improvement and I have a few lingering questions.

1. What do you think of the "External Links" section, particularly for entertainer biographies? Should it be placed before or after the "References" section?
   1. The placement of sections in an article is best gone over at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, but to answer your specific question, after.
2. Would you have sectioned the article differently?
   1. This is very subjective. Personally, I wouldn't have the Biography header, would have just broken the article into 3 sections. But the way you did it is fine.
3. Should I write more about the albums? I try to but it usually ends up sounding a bit subjective, or the tone just isn't very "encyclopedic". Still, I feel as if there is room for expansion.
   1. Again, subjective, but most editors would agree that single sentence paragraphs are problematic. I would condense them into a single paragraph, or two short ones (one for the 2010s and one for the 2020s). For the 1st album and the 2 EPs, I would expand, especially since they don't have their own articles. The 2nd album, which has its own article is fine.
4. How should I proceed with categories? I feel like I often miss the important/pertinent ones while adding a few that are somewhat broad. For example, should I add the "Electronic music articles" category to Jame's article, a biography?
   1. Categories are not my strong suit, I tend to hit the major ones, and let editors who scour WP about categories flesh them out. But if you know of a cat, than by all means add it.
5. Anything else I can improve?
   1. Looks good to me as it is, other than the single sentence structure. One thing though, you mention she has an aka, whenever you do that, and bold it in the lead, create a redirect. In this case I did it for you.

Thanks again for your time! If you'd rather I ping you on my own talk page next time, please let me know. Mooonswimmer 17:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

The page 'Arunmozhi' was created by me as a music fan. Since Wikipedia remains an important source of information, I wanted to document the contributions of Arunmozhi to music in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no conflict of interest. As a new editor of Wikipedia, I couldnt connect this page with one page, which is already there in his name in Tamil language, which is very brief and short of information. Most of his songs are internally sources which were earlier found in his both names. Through this page, I organized them well and properly sourced.! I have also collected few more reliable sources, that I will add. Thank you so much.! Thirukannan (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, but there is a clear indication that you have some relationship with the article's subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi I accepted it as it was written as a fan of the subject. I regret for showing this value in editing, which is clearly in conflict with the neutrality policy. Except that there is no other conflict of interest. I am trying to learn the important basic policies of Wikipedia that govern the editors roles and behaviour. Thank you for indicating this. I have cited few more sources and revised it from a neutral point of view.Thirukannan (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You moved the article on Korean composer Manbang Yi to "drafts". Please note that: 1) it is much longer and has much more information than articles marked as "stubs" which nevertheless have been approved to function on en.wikipedia; 2) I have done extensive research to complete the sections on Yi's compositions, written works and performances of his works and included all this in the entry 3) due to a language barrier it is practically impossible for me to quote other sources 4) there is very very little on Yi in English, so the need to create an entry on him is even bigger. The only thing I can do (cf. 3) is actually shorten the biography so that it can be approved as a stub. I would be grateful if you tell me which information to ommit and how much is enough for it to be accepted as a stub. thank you Ivonna Nowicka (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. It has nothing to do with lack of notability or sourcing, neither of which I looked at. It all comes down to the fact that there are clear indications you have some connection to the article's subject. Would you care to explain what that connection is? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

A user Lillyput4455 is adding the nominations and awards of IPPA awards in articles such as Aisi Hai Tanhai and Sammi (TV series) without any reference, they are not notable awards and also there is no nay article linked to that awards, thus not satisfy the wiki criteria for awards. Please, guide the user about it. Qwef1234 (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I saw that you added a tag to the page

Original source: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/scoring_year_by_year.htm

Additional source: https://www.footballdb.com/leaders/yearly-scoring-points

Any feedback is appreciated, as I'm still learning. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi

synthesizing the stats, but are simply reporting them. And list articles are better if instead of simply providing the list, which many editors do, you also provide context. For instance, your list would be great if you explained why you have 3 tables (e.g. prior to the merger of the AFL and NFL...). But again, if you do, provide a source for what you right, so that it's not original research. Also, as a hint, when you leave a message, there are 3 real important things: first, be civil, which you were; second, sign your comment, which you did; and third, leave a link to the page you want to discuss, which you also did. So nice job. Keep up the good work, and don't be afraid to ask questions. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

18:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! can you tell me why you always move Ksenija's page to te Hurricane's. Her page have all that needs to be there? Slovena4ther (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. First, I'm not always moving the page. I did it once. And that was because there is simply not enough in-depth coverage about her, outside the band, to show that she meets notability by herself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

But she is definitely deserves her own page and she is notability a lot. Also think that this is not the reason to move her page to Hurricane's. She is definetly one of the most popular singers from Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slovena4ther (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Guthrie, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guthrie, Arizona (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mangoe (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea why you made the Pioneer Brewing article a "draft" - maybe some sort of play on words given that they produce mainly packaged beers?

What would you have me do?

• List the awards they have received over the past few years? Boring I reckon.
• List the types of beers they produce - given that they seem to ring the changes in styles fairly regularly the article would soon be out of date.

When I created the article some time ago, I deliberately left it bare bones because there is not a lot of third party references around at the moment it being a family-run rural based start up and being in Australia is not PR conscious (or full of BS) like a lot of US businesses.

I don't know why some editors do this sort of thing to articles created in good faith. It's no wonder that the numbers of active editors is dropping away. Most people don't have the energy to deal with this sort of crap.

If you want an article to pick on look closer to home - the article on Flying Bison Brewing Company has lots of issues.

Silent Billy (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Because it doesn't have nearly enough in-depth sources to show it passes

WP:NCORP. Since I think it could be notable, I moved it to draft so you could work on it. And btw, then going to AfD and casting a !vote in retaliation is a pretty juvenile response. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

11:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't retaliation. It's a flippin' locality at best. A short para in the local county article would be sufficient. Silent Billy (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, when you haven't participated in AfD for years, then suddenly show up at a discussion right after you post on my talk page, whining about your article, which is just below the AfD discussion notice. Very few would not see the transparency of your above lie. Stay off my talk page. You are not worth anyone's time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at

( The thread is about interference with your XfD !vote but also concerns other allegations about you. ) Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I see your point about the question of notability of CAST-15. I will try to address the concerns as far as I can infer them. I will need some time (weeks) though as I have to manage other duties.

Well, technically, you, personally, gave no suggestion or explanation for the tag, but the following seems to state things sufficiently.

Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention.

Most of the citations at the time were references within the RTCA publication sphere. RTCA is not FAA, while the CASTs are FAA publications. So, the citations were in that sense, secondary to a degree; they were non-FAA documents referencing FAA documents that were crucially important in the development of the non-FAA documents. Particularly, the CASTs were effectively the reasons those documents came to be.

These CASTs are at once historic and useful; yes, on one hand they were technically obsoleted by the new releases of other documents, but on the other hand they have significant information in them that was not included in the new document, but is very helpful in understanding them, and secondary sources about the new documents also refer to the CASTs. I have found in them citations for words of advice that FAA-appointed auditors have given me over the decades.

The 2004 FAA Job Aid refers to a number of CASTs, directing reviewers to them for additional information and guidance. I am trying to find the current system of FAA Software Reviews as I presume there has been some shake up.

I was able to add some citations that are neither FAA orders or RTCA publications. Hopefully, these help.

IveGoneAway (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. No, RTCA are primary sources. And I understand your contention that they help to understanding the newer regs. Perhaps you could add this information into a historical section on the article about the newer regs? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Never the less, I think I provided secondary sources (Rierson and Mathworks are authoritative). These direct workers to a number of CASTs, not just -15; Mathworks in particular seeing it necessary to cite CAST-15, not DO-178C, to explain the distinctions between HLR/LLR. A frustration of Rev C is how little clarity was improved; EASA are presently banging us up against CAST-15 (through the CM) in a language development.

As a whole, the CASTs would be mentioned in the history, whereas the CASTs need to be sited in specific sections of DO-178C, et al, to explain some concepts particularly novel to the guidance.

The FAA Job Aid directs the users to the CASTs where they know the DOs are incomplete or unclear. I am not saying all CAST are notable. CAST-15 may seem an orphan now, but there would be a few articles on FAA Orders that would reference it when I get to it. The CASTs record a historic effort and so appear in the established technical literature where they are cited rather than the standards.

IveGoneAway (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You said that it "appears" that the page was created by a paid editor or someone with COI? I am neither getting paid, nor do I have any COI. How does it appear this way? As far as the "independence" of the sources are concerned, can you please tell me which source is an issue? Most of the sources I used are sources that I saw being used in other approved pages. Please, if you are going to mark a page someone has worked on as a draft, do not do so with out explaining a bit more. I would like to follow guidelines. I think I did. If I did not do so, please elaborate how. A link to the page is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elio_Villafranca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arimaniacle (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. There are clear indications that you have a relationship with the article's subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

What kind of indications? --Arimaniacle (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, the info is all sourced. I do not have a COI with the subject. People of less noteworthiness have pages written on them. You are not being descript in the feedback. If you do not give me any real feedback, I can make a RfC. --Arimaniacle (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't give hints to folks to show them how to circumvent being COI/UPE. And your reaction tends to say that you're probably UPE, rather than simply COI. And "make a RFC"? About what? Simply submit your article for review through the AfC process. And follow the instructions on

WP:UPE about how to deal with your conflict. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

21:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't want to give me hints? If any reference to an issue is a hint, and you can't give hints, how can anyone be made aware of issues? As far as the RfC, I was understanding the term literally. If it is just you I need to listen to, and you don't want to give "hints" I thought a "request for comment" may be a good way to get a comment from someone. That said, is there an issue with making an RFC? Is it not as innocuous as it sounds? I really am trying to abide by the guidelines. What else am I supposed to do? --Arimaniacle (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures. You could certainly start one, but what would it be about? They usually have a very specific purpose, like "Should we change the SNG about Olympic athletes from the current one which says that anyone who participated in the Olympics should be considered notable, to limit it to only those who have won medals?". (That's a recent one). But feel free. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I won't make the RFC if it will be of no use. I was thinking to use it in context of it's use for pages. That is how I thought of incorporating it to this situation. The idea was to Request for Comment if anyone else thinks I am UPE or COI. To me, the fact that you said I'm likely UPE tells me that you really are a wrong in your assumptions. I have resubmitted the draft for review. Are you saying that there is nothing else for me to do? - Thanks--Arimaniacle (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I was notified of the lack of independent sources for the article Nadja Petrovic, but I have referenced three sources outside her own website. is this not considered enough? I know that two of them are in Macedonian, but that's where the information is. is there a rule that they most be in English? Regards. B. Jankuloski (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi B. Jankuloski. Of the 3, 2 are primary, since they are related to the artist (because they are the places putting on her shows). That leaves only the single remaining one. I could not find anything additional in-depth about her. You'd need at least 2 more to show she passes GNG. Hope this helps.

I have added the required sources which I hope will satisfy GNG. Could you please have a look again and, if all is well, advise me if it's okay? I'd appreciate if you let me know if you have removed the deletion template, or if there is something else I need to do. Thank you! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice job Bjankuloski06. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I saw that you tagged the CKFF-FM Wikipedia article with notability. I found a newsletter from June 2020 saying that the radio station signed on the air in April 2020. There's also a link to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) of when the new radio station in Kipawa, Quebec, Canada was approved in 2018 to operate at 104.1 FM. Hope this helps! 45.78.101.125 (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

What you need is 3 or more in-depth pieces from sources which are independent and reliable. Newsletters would not be reliable. And simple listings are not in-depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at

( The thread is about interference with your XfD !vote but also concerns other allegations about you. ) Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Onel5969. Wikipedia says that you reviewed the page "

As was said in the edit summary, it did not meet

WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

11:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

My only intention is to enhance Wikipedia. I do this by adding content and citations to articles that display a warning. I also edit articles to bring them up-to-date, for example, Olympic results. This gives me real buzz! As I go through this process I come across interesting and notable people and organisations who do not have a Wikipedia page. I then do extensive research and publish an article following Wikipedia strict guidelines. I do not know David Williams (I wish I did as he appears to be an extraordinary character!) nor am I paid. Therefore there is no WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. The article has 18 reliable secondary and independent sources. Please move the page back to mainspace so that readers can view the accomplishments of a notable person who I think is a genius.FuBiuC (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are clear indications that you have some type of relationship with the article's subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

David Edward Williams is one of several gay married people I am researching for a series of blogs and publications on notable members of the LGBTQ community. That's my only relationship with him.FuBiuC (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The Rink bandy article was recently separated into two separate articles: one for Rink bandy and the other for Rinkball. They are separate organized sports. Several other pages have since been relinked to the new article page for rinkball. Is there any way to revert the last edit? So that the two pages remain separate? CheckersBoard (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect, rinkball is not rink bandy. They have separate rules and separate governing bodies and equipment. Please help revert back to where they were separated. The International Rinkball Federation is a separate body from the Federation of International Bandy. They are not the same sporting bodies. CheckersBoard (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted back to the target article due to the fact that their is not a single reference from an independent reliable source which states that they are different sports. In addition, there were large swaths of the article which were unreferenced. Since you've returned the article to mainspace, I've removed all the unsourced material. It still does not pass

WP:GNG, however, since it still does not have a single in-depth reference from an independent reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

20:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's probably a thing that warrants at least a few words outside the 'blood in stools' article. You're right that it needs decent citing, so that's been added now. Chumpih ^t 20:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course you're American so it's no surprise you don't know this. The diacritic mark in her surname Štrba is an essential part. In my country, for example, Štrba and Strba would be considered different surnames. Stop with this Anglocentrism and move the page properly. Shumkichi (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If you wish help, be civil, else, stay the hell off my page. It would help if you understood WP policies and guidelines, but I guess that's asking too much. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

hello hello

Hope that you are doing very well...

can you check the article now? I believe it should be ready now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yacoub_Al-Atrash Saher AlSous (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Yanga Chief, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: In my opinion, the 2022 article is sufficiently different enough to the one deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yanga Chief in 2019 to avoid outright WP:G4 deletion. That said, the 2022 article would appear to be sourced from references that would not be considered reliable, and second WP:AFD might result in a similar outcome. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Shirt58, since I can't see the deleted version, I was unsure, so I figured I'd have someone check it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello hope you are doing well. I had created an article named Arham Abbasi which was deleted previous day and the reason was G4. And the admin User:Justlettersandnumbers, who deleted the page suggested me that the article is better then the previous one and he/she told me to expand and submit the existing draft (Draft:Arham Abbasi) which has been created already by an another edit. I have expanded the draft and now I have selected the draft for review. So I will be thankful if you check and review the draft. Thank you in advance. Trakinwiki (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. The article needs to pass either

WP:GNG, hopefully both. At this point, there's nothing in the article to show that it passes either. Please read those guidelines and they'll help you understand. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

10:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, trust you are doing fine. I am a bit confused why this article was moved to draft ... your rather short statement that "(the article) is not suitable as written to remain published" is not very helpful in understanding the reasons. The article is well sourced with extremely reliable and respected sources. It has been live and continuously being improved between 14th December and today.

IMHO, other articles with the same or less merit than this article are passed by WP to be "suitable to remain published", I can cite several dozen examples including Annelies_Strba

Can you please check the article and let me know why this should not remain published? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shubhra_Mohanty User_talk:Wadlin13 (talk)Wadlin13 (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

First, I didn't leave a rather short statement, but a full paragraph explaining why it was draftified, second, I did leave a short edit summary, although not what you state above, which very explicitly said the reason for the move. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Greetings! I have reviewed the article again, added some more respectable references. I have strong reasons to believe that the article does meet the

Kindly review this article. Thank You Decentuser (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I wish you could have consulted with me before deleting this page. I was not aware that there were copyvios. I thought the problem with the previous delete was lack of notability. I worked very hard to address that issue and now I find that the page is being again deleted but for a different reason. I searched and found one sentence that seems to be copied from HERE. Perhaps there are other copyvios I did not find. But could I at least have a chance to fix the problem before it is summarily deleted.Toploftical (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't delete the page, I redirected it. After that, the offending copyvio was Revdel'd by an admin. Copyvios are an issue that you really can't "work on", per WP policy they have to be removed as quickly as possible. I don't have access to the original post, since it has been removed, but you might ask the admin who did the revdel. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that a page I made was deleted. (I think)

Talk:Tiffany Moon

I see you have good experience on here. Can you please tell me what the issue is or offer advice? You decide what articles are good on Wikipedia? You just wrote (no notability outside show). People have to be on multiple TV shows or...

I thought an interview in People was good enough. What about this one? Tiffany Hendra

Just trying to figure this out. How do you decide? Thank you

Table at dorsia (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Reality show participants have to show notability outside of the show. If all of the press revolves around their participation in a show, then consensus has been to simply redirect them to the show. If they've developed notability outside a show, then there will be press coverage. A good example of this are are contestants on The Voice. If after the show, even though they finished 5th, they get a record contract and put out some albums, they'll be notable, otherwise they'll simply get redirected. And interviews are considered primary sources, and as such do not count towards notability. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That is pretty clear. That makes sense as to why the Tiffany Hendra page is ok. Sounds good to me. Thank you for helping me. Table at dorsia (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, I just got the notification that you reviewed the article Maris Vijay but Praxidicae moved in into draft third time. Though i am not agree on his/her sole decision. Please look into it. StyleArt (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Look https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Gotico_Angioiano&diff=1072103519&oldid=1072090302 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Gotico_Angioiano&diff=1072110734&oldid=1072110332

Best regards, --Ulamm (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

And in the next case, begin a discussion with the author, please, before you withdraw an article from the public.--Ulamm (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC) + --Ulamm (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

deleted, then restored and detagged. Per special:permalink/1072129380#Queensland Wood Reference Collection copyvio deletion Apparently, the whole source site is cc-by-4.0. Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

That is weird, I saw the copyright notice at the bottom of the source, which is why I tagged it. Thanks for letting me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello please do not revert back the changes I made. These are in good faith and not vandalism. You can see why I made them in the comments in

Sorry, you should ask that changes be made on the article's talk page, not make them yourself. Yes, you wrote the original article, but then it was reviewed by an independent editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello OK. I will ask to make changes in the Talk page. Can you please address this as the editor who approved this? see: Talk:A Totally Hermetic Electron-Nucleus Apparatus. I think that you using the UPE tag on my recent, small edits (which were removing a small paragraph that I wrote but now realize is contentious) is totally unfair, apart from being false, given the COI statements and tags I used.

User:Migue.arratia  — Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC) 

Hello dear friend, thank you for your very high experience in preventing my transfer. I really have trouble transmitting. I really made the article with a lot of difficulty and discussion. I cleared the bad and bad sources. But I have a problem with the final registration and I need an experienced one for the final registration. Thank you for helping me gain more experience from you.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zahra_Meygoli --Nazanin1376 (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, there are quite a few experienced reviewers who have looked at your article now, all of which have come to the same conclusion, you do not have enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

ok thanks for help me --Nazanin1376 (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, thank you for explaining everything around the Neal Kwatra article. It was very clarifying and I know how to make the appropriate changes.

Best, kkfinn1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkfinn1 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at

I'm not sure if you and 2001:4455:364:A800:69ED:98AE:B3B4:FB90 are the same or different users, but it's confusing to me that Kayako Saeki has been summarily redirected twice. Kayako and Sadako Yamamura are the two biggest J-horror icons and are essentially Japan's Freddy and Jason. Redirecting those pages is at least going to require a deletion discussion.

The main reason given on the Kayako talk page for why it (and several other Ju-On / Ringu articles) were redirected is that they are currently poorly-written and sourced, and require rewrites. However, that line of reasoning has

A few of the other templated/redirected articles were also questionable, such as the original Ringu novel, the Ringu novel series (although I could easily see a merger with The Ring (franchise)), the original sequel to The Ring (Spiral), the original protagonist, and the Korean remake. Those are substantial enough topics to warrant a discussion imo. Darkknight2149 18:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, articles without sources (which 2 of them are) can be redirected at any point in time, and should not be reverted, as per WP policy (see

WP:BURDEN), until reliable sourcing is provided. The third article also does not have enough in-depth sourcing from independent sourcing to show it meets GNG either.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

19:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BRD and the deletion process. It isn't something you can decide to do unilaterally without discussion, especially if there is doubt in the primary reasons it was redirected. Darkknight2149

21:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If the entire article is uncited... do the math. BRD is guideline. BURDEN is policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you changed the

I would like to restore the page, the issue appears to be that it needs to be proven that season 5 of

Hi. Yes, now that you've added the sources to pass VERIFY, I've marked it as reviewed. Nice to meet an editor who understands policy. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Could it be that you are unfamiliar with the literature? Central Asian history is constructed from scattered sources in obscure languages that have not been thoroughly studied. This article is about the same quality as most biographies of Central Asian rulers. Given the poor sources I see no way to improve it. Am I missing something? Benjamin Trovato (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. First, when you leave a message regarding a particular article, please leave a link to that article. Second, not sure what literature you are speaking about. If you're talking about the single, unreliable source you link to, than you are correct, I am unfamiliar with it. Other than the fact that it's an unreliable source. Second, the source does not mention, but I believe the equivalent is Devlet Giray Black. Regardless, the over-riding concepts are

WP:OSE argument. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

11:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the entire scholarly literature on the history of inner Asia. Sources to improve the article either do not exist or in some obscure location that I have not found. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand this. The purpose of draftspace is to make improvements. The article is a summary of the best scholarship that I could find and I do not see any way that it could be improved. Do you know any sources that could be used to improve the article? Benjamin Trovato (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

If there is only a single unreliable source, than it is not an encyclopedic topic. Articles on WP have to pass

WP:GNG, neither of which this article does. If you are having difficulty finding sources, you might pose a question at the appropriate project talkpage, asking for help. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

11:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC).

I have read at least 10,000 pages of Asian history. If better sources exist I think I would have found them.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you unfamiliar with inner Asian history, or am I? First, there is no binary distinction between reliable and unreliable. There are degrees of reliability and the sources for inner Asia are much less reliable than those for modern Europe. We must use the sources we have. The idea is to summarize the best sources available and make improvements as new information is found. I see no reason to suppress what little information we have when better information is not available. Wikipedia articles are placed in mainspace so that people can improve them when improvements are possible.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No, you are unfamiliar with WP policies, guidelines and procedures. And seem unwilling to learn. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I received a notification message that says only The page Brittney Rodriguez has been reviewed. It points to the page Brittney Rodriguez that I created, but there doesn't appear to be any recent edits, and none by you, on that page. Can you explain what the message was it about? The deletion nomination discussion page for it doesn't have any edits by you, either. I don't even see anything associated with that page on your "User contributions" page, but a link to your profile is below the message in my alert. If it was reviewed, what was the results of the review? If you did nothing, why was I notified about it? THanks much. Kire1975 (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

New articles go through a review process. When an unreviewed article is sent to AfD, a reviewer will usually mark it as reviewed, since the outcome of the AfD will determine whether the article is kept or deleted. Hope this explains it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really. Is there a policy page that explains this? Kire1975 (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Explains what? That new articles are reviewed? Take a look at

WP:NPP. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

13:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Explains the questions that I asked. I'll take a look. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You have done a lot for the Wikipedia Community, Congrats on the hard work! Phillypaboy123 (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969,

I noticed that you converted some of the public housing estates in Hong Kong to redirects. Please change back to their own articles.

Thank you.

Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, they simply don't meet

WP:GNG guidelines. Two recent AfD's support redirecting to the lists, and I've just begun a 3rd, which will most likely end up with the same result. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

12:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Quack quack. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

(

notable topic–as indicated by the 17 reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes. Sean Stephens (talk

) 01:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Calling a probable sock a probable sock is disruptive? I urge you not to post on my talk page again, and not shunt discussions into notability which had nothing to do with notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Especially when it is a sock. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I'll respect that request. But I'm sure you you'd know to be cautious with sock allegations; until proven, it's just conjecture. Even "probable socks" are entitled to the assumption of good faith until an investigation proves them as one, which I'd encourage you to open. Sean Stephens (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The SPI is closed. And socks deserve no courtesy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @

(

WP:RFPP Happy Editing--IAmChaos

07:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@IAmChaos: can you do it please? I want to have this article protected.. Thank you, Khabat4545 (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@IAmChaos: I send my request to the link you gave me.. Thank you very much Khabat4545 (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969. I made a request to you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong#Mass housing estates articles blanking/ redirecting to self-revert the edits where you blank-and-redirected a second time.

Hi Onel5969. At Anthro New England, you blanked-and-redirected after a redirect was reverted. This is after I posted my message to you above saying that blanking-and-redirecting again is in violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection. Please stop doing this as Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection does not make an exception for articles that do not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually it's not a violation. Cheers. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is it not a violation of the deletion policy? Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection says, "If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again." Did you attempt to reach a consensus before blanking-and-redirecting again? Cunard (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for moving it to Draft space - but the article WAS in the Draft space, I had not moved it to the main space. There is no COI , UPE issues - I am a US Citizen living in USA for past 45 years. Sankarnair2 (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkknight2149 02:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello sir, This is both the people of his group. An account has been activet after 5 years to give support.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogesh Ingale User name (InfiNeuro), (Zgz.or) Cinzia007 (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Sir I told you last time, If my estimate is correct then these people will support in the article of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prashant M Walde

User name - Priyatungi, InfiNeuro, Zgz.or, Aaajit22700, Azaishah2000, Urbanlife1984

Cinzia007 (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. A user who seems to be disruptive following edits on

Edamyb (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Be advised that

WP:ANI regarding your edits to Rajen Sharma. —C.Fred (talk

) 03:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks C.Fred - it's already been archived, so not sure what it was about. Hopefully I didn't get blocked. . Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Result was Edamyb blocked as a sockpuppet. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If you look at User:Wikipedian India, it appears that this editor intends to create an article for every person in the India Army who was killed in action and posthumously received a medal. All show same pattern, down to photo of wife receiving the medal. I am going to see if I can get the attention of an Admin, perhaps to (strongly) advise to stop this effort. David notMD (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah. Appears that Administrators (including you?) have deleted some of the articles that Wikipedian India created. Note that in January, Wikipedian India expressed desire to change name to Soldierpedia, adding: "Soldierpedia is a non-profit organization, creates, edits, and manages individual Wikipedia pages for the national warriors." David notMD (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed that as well David notMD, but was unaware of the soldierpedia issue. Appears to have changed their username now. BTW, I'm not an admin. And feel free to comment on the AfD's regarding this individual's articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boiling_Point_%282021_film%29&type=revision&diff=1065673242&oldid=1063320014

A whole chunk of revisions that were not in breach of copyright have been removed from public view, so we can no longer see who added what or why, particlarly in the 'Reception' section.

Please only blank out the specific revisions that contained copyright-infringing changes.

Jakeqz (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Jakeqz - That's not the way revdel works. Since the copyrighted material appears in EVERY VERSION of the article from when it was first inserted, the revdel must contain all the edits from when it was inserted, through when it was deleted. I myself didn't know this until about 2 years ago. I had been doing it the way you suggested, but was told that was incorrect, which is when I learned the reason. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm used to version control software like `git` where it would be possible for super-admins to 'rewrite history' in such a way that the non-copyvio edits can still be seen individially in all their glory. I wanted to try to 'thank' someone for a well-sourced review quote that seems to accurately describe the film (which I am yet to watch). But now it is impossible to determine who added that quotation. IMO this is something that needs to be fixed, but it is probably and arguably never going to be top of the agenda. Jakeqz (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Yeah, probably not, changing versions of history? The reason we have it that way is to be able to attribute who added what to any page, as part of our creative commons license. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

About the need for inline citations. Math articles often do not provide inline citations because the materials can be checked using a pure logic. I know that in Wikipedia, all the materials need to be sourced. But the materials do appear in the books cited in the references (just that sometimes online citations are not provided). For the mac lane article, I have at least added an inline citation. I hope this clears the issue. -- Taku (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969,

I noticed that you put notability tag on some of Hong Kong housing estate articles and thus nominating them for deletion. Will you stop doing this next time?

Thank you.

Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No, because they do not demonstrate that they pass notability standards. Stop creating articles about non-notable subjects. Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If an article needs more

It is wrong to redirect a parent brand, Vileda to what is effectively a sub-brand, O-Cedar. If there is to be any redirection, it is to be in the opposite direction. If you wish to improve Wikipedia, then reverse the redirect, or find sources for Vileda rather than incorrectly redirecting it. --Cornellier (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a valid redirect - and redirecting an article which does not establish either

WP:CORPDEPTH is a valid move. If you wish to create an article on Vileda, please feel free to do so, and provide enough sourcing so that it passes those two criteria. The O-Cedar article is equally as dreadful, but if they are indeed the same company, than the O-Cedar article should be expanded. And if there was a name change, than the existing article should be moved. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Gary Kamiya's page has been changed and is now fit to publish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disintegration1989 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Why you moved Kaia Kanepi, Monica Niculescu and Yanina Wickmayer career statistics pages to draft? What is wrong with them? The same things are with almost 90% of player's career statistics pages? JamesAndersoon (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Gnisu (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:OWN is a page you might like to look at. Happy Editing--IAmChaos

06:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Saints Row: Undercover. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jumpytoo Talk 07:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969,

This article currently (UTC 12:28 AM) displays with a

This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page created by a banned or blocked user (Awanama – SPI confirmed suspected) in violation of the user's ban or block, with no substantial edits by others. See CSD G5.

My initial speedy decline response would have been "This article was created on 27 January 2006 by Makewa. Unless I am missing something, that user has never been tagged as a Awanama sockpuppet."

It would appear to me that the G5 applies to one or perhaps more of the templates and/or categories attached to the page.

• {{Cuisine of Indonesia}}
• {{Cuisine of Malaysia}}
• {{Cuisine of China}}

I'm Teh CIR about technical stuff like this. Could you possibly look into this and specifically identify the templates and/or categories that need G5-ing?

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Shirt58 - okay, this is a bit bizarre, it looks like the CSD tag was never actually added by anyone, but was somehow added automatically during this edit, when Awanama, who is indeed a puppeteer, added the {{Cuisine of Malaysia}} template. Looking forward, that automatic add occurred when the G5 template was added to the template by an ip editor. Apparently when the underlying template got tagged for G5, it auto populated any articles it was on. However, imho, as much as I hate sockpuppetry, the template does not appear to be a valid G5 candidate, as Awanama created it on 7 October 2020, and was not blocked until December of that year. I took the incentive and removed the G5 notice from the template, because I wanted to see if that removed it from the article, and it did. That appeared to be the only template which was tagged. I actually did not see a {{Cuisine of China}} on the article.

Curious as to why you brought this to my attention? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

For your information all the data are NOT extracted from the source which I quoted (ParisOlimpiaPress) and to which you wrongly attribute the catalogue; the source is https://openlibrary.org/publishers/Essex_House from which I painfully extracted all data including the publishing year. If you have the opinion that the bibliography of an important and significant editorial activity cannot exist in Wikipedia simply because ParisOlimpiaPress published and copies the vaue and imprecise information present in https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/essex_house pleas at least act in a such a way that that it become impossible to have a requirement to "Creating Essex House (publisher)"LordFalk (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the prose was a copyright violation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree on that. What I propose is to recover the bibliography with a minimal textLordFalk (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I reformulated Essex House (publisher); please confirm me that this formulation has no copyright violation. Thanks.LordFalk (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup, no copyvio

WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

02:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, hope all is well, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums about undue redirecting and Ive understood from policy changes that redirects should not be editwarred if they are contested but taken to AfD.In this case for example here the article looks relatively well referenced including rs such as AllMusic and Music Might and a book source. regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969,

I do not fully understand why did you move him into draftspace, so how does the article lack some "independent sources"? Please provide me more information about that, because in this form it is not acceptable for me. Thank you. With best wishes, --Smoothcheeks (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Because most of the article is unsourced. He's most likely notable, but WP requires that

WP:VERIFY be satisfied. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

14:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel 5969, regarding your tags on Conica AG: I have checked all sources again of which a high number is in German language (I am German). One of those is e.g. SRF, the public and main Swiss (German speaking) broadcaster, that serves twice as source and can be considered independent with no doubt. Others are reliable international or regional professional media in the fields of athletics in general and running in particular. Nevertheless, it was and is a current topic during and after the Olympic Games in Tokyo, where some athletes had problems with the surfaces of the running tracks used there. I am confident that this article can be expanded and would consider it more of an already well developed stub that needs only a bit more flesh on the bones. This is the way. I’ll take care. There is more to come! Respicefinem (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Respicefinem, the SRF is a good source. I haven't checked all of them, but the 8 or so I looked at all seemed to be primary or press release type material. That's why I tagged it, rather than prodding or AfD'ing it. I'll let another reviewer take a deeper dive into it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969! Have you had another reviewer look at the article in the meantime? @Alexandermcnabb: AfDPROD'ed it, but I think this could be solved in a different way. Instead of deleting the article, I would rather suggest marking it WP:STUB or WP:CITENEED for the time being. I still have some sources to add. Thanks Respicefinem (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

They pass per NMUSIC, no? Charted single? Is it not verified? Drmies (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Drmies - Very valid point. And one I frankly overlooked, as I was looking at it as a Disney song, not necessarily a song by the artist. But you are right about that. However, that said, I was looking at it as per GNG, which I don't think she makes the bar. I see as the note below that it's now been taken to AfD (and while I agree with the nom's assessment, I won't be participating in, since it's canvassing -- although I would have if I hadn't been canvassed), so we'll see what the community thinks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks--but please do weigh in there: you have a wealth of experience. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Since you have previously been involved with the Jessica Darrow article/redirect, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Darrow. Aerin17 (t • c) 06:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I am requesting your help since I had some user nominating the article of Andras Miyagi for deletion. Can you please have a look over it when you have time? I am asking for your help since you have reviewed so many articles of professional wrestlers I have made before. And now I need some help in the discussion of deletion. Take a look at what they wrote in there as well please. If they are right about the fact that the refs that I chose are not relevant for the article please just let me know in my talk page. Best regards. User:JeyReydar97 (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi

canvassing, but I agree with the assessments of those who are participating in the discussion. You'll need several in-depth pieces about her, not merely snippets. Allow it to be dratified and look for more sourcing. And don't let this discourage you. Hope this helps.Onel5969 ^{TT me}

15:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You have recently been on my page and made some proposals, including deletion of one of my article. Can I ask you to refrain from your actions respectively. Articles submitted met the criteria for inclusion on wiki. They were written very comparatively with other articles which have been accepted. You should know that subjects from some African countries are not readily collaboratively thorough as compared to western subjects which gets thoroughly covered in the media. It is in this vain that I have taken it upto myself to document as much subjects as possible of African originality. Thank you for your support. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 21:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You should learn WP policies, guidelines and procedures. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)