User talk:Onel5969: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:42, 16 October 2022

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

Edit Count

edit count

Wiki mark-up link

Hi! You might find these handy:

Simple guide to Wikipedia mark-up
- Advanced guide to Wiki mark-up

Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links for new editors

If you're leaving a question regarding an article you're attempting to get onto Wikipedia, here are some links you might find helpful:

Notability Tag

Hello @user:Onel5969, Thank you for reviweing the new page I am working on Linda Mitchell. I have added more links and wondering whether you could review and suggest if further improvements are required. Thanks, Tirutirutiru (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @user:Onel5969,

I undid your tag after adding quite a lot of references - asking for review almost 10 days ago (I even left a note here…). But, instead of providing feedback, you have simply undid my action - the notability guidelines clearly says that we are not to be going through undo wars… Shouldn’t a neutral person review this?

Tirutirutiru (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral. I did review it after you asked me to, and so no reason to remove the tag. Please see WP:CITEBOMB. It's usually a sign of a person of questionable notability that an editor is attempting to overcompensate for. The vast majority of the refs you provided are either mentions or come from primary sources (e.g. this). Neither of which go towards notability. None of her exhibitions are major, and refs like this, are simply press releases passing as news stories, aka churnalism. In addition, interviews are also considered primary sources, such as this. What you need to do is focus on several in-depth articles from independent reliable sources to show notability. Use no more than 3 (two is preferable) for any assertion, and then wait for it to be reviewed. Or you can ask me to have another look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion

Iam from ta Wiki. Sattai Duraimurugan is a very less famous Person. article in ta.wikipedia Deleted for less coverage. His fans Wrote it in too much Promotion way . Kindly Help to delete. 157.49.253.57 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Training

Hi @user:Onel5969, I have been following you for a while and you have reviewed some of my page, this is me requesting for training for NPR. I hope to hear from you B.Korlah (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: World Vaisnava Association

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of World Vaisnava Association, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Different from deleted version and hence ineligible for G4. Notability is yet to be determined. Thank you. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Just noticed you back up at the top of the NPP reviewers list. We might stand a chance of pulling the backlog down now. The Nov 2021 backlog drive nearly knocked it out of me. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mccapra - long time no talk. Hope all is well with you. Don't know if I'm "back" or not. But I saw that there are about 5000 articles beyond the dastardly 90 day limit, so thought I'd take a look at some of them. We'll see how it goes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Paulcell Place, Arizona

The article Paulcell Place, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a populated place; appears to be a former ranch.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 05:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Battle of Narnaul"

I had moved Battle of Narnaul to a separate page then simply redirecting it to the district as i wanted to expand the details about the battle, but till the time i collected the data you again redirected it stating it as duplication. I just want to discuss if we could expand the article spearately? Harman Paul (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. There's no problem with splitting out the battle, as long as there are valid refs to back up the information. To do that, simply cut and paste the info from the city article, but when you do that, you must provide attribution in the edit summary, something like, "Info taken from Narnaul, please see that page's history for attribution". This is required as per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Then summarize the battle on the city page, and put a link to the battle page by adding: {{Main|Battle of Narnaul}} at the top of the section on the city page. Then, if you are working on developing the page, you can put {{construction}} at the top of the page you are working on. I hope that isn't too confusing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added links and removed orphan

Hi @Onel5969

I removed the orphan message from Saturday Night (2022 film) as I linked two articles to it. Adding more. Please check. Thank you for guiding me. Ameer al safar (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award for 2018

		Redirect Ninja Award
		For over 20,000 redirect reviews during 2018. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an award to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2018. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We have just caught up with giving out deserved awards. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Point of Rocks, Arizona

The article Point of Rocks, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a populated place or community to mee GEOLAND; no significant coverage to meet GNG. Not to be confused with a the place of the same name on the Salt River in Tempe.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Big Horn, Arizona

The article Big Horn, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This appears to have been a service station and nothing more. No significant coverage to meet GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lone Mountain Ranch, Arizona

The article Lone Mountain Ranch, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable subdivision with no significant coverage beyond real estate advertisements. Not to be confused with Lone Mountain Ranches in Montana and Patagonia which seem to have received more coverage in the local Arizona papers.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 05:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sur (San José de las Lajas)

Hi, I made the page Sur (San José de las Lajas) and I’m wondering if I can make a draft of it? Thank you have a nice day CubanoBoi (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CubanoBoi - absolutely. Done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! CubanoBoi (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Mk.gee

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mk.gee, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article is considerably more fleshed out that it was last time it was listed, including a large number of new sources. Clearly passes A7 too. Take to AfD if required. . Thank you. Ged UK 15:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Atsme. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Demon Queen, 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.)

Atsme 💬 📧 16:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lone Butte Ranch, Arizona

The article Lone Butte Ranch, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is literally just a ranch with no evidence of a community. Fails GEOLAND and GNG due to lack of significant coverage.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 18:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Granite Dells, Arizona

The article Granite Dells, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Maps and newspaper coverage show both a geologic feature and a subdivision of the same name, neither of which are notable under GEOLAND or GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 18:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Flower Pot, Arizona

The article Flower Pot, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is the location of the Flower Pot Ranch, not a community or otherwise notable place.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mangum Springs, Arizona

The article Mangum Springs, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Aside from the actual spring, there's a group of buildings labelled as "Magnum Spring" or "Magnum Camp", but I'm not finding any coverage to establish notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Diamond Bell Ranch, Arizona

The article Diamond Bell Ranch, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable subdivision; could not locate significant coverage beyond real estate notices and advertisements.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Pages

Hello, I wanted to ask if I can move a draft page to an article or its not fine? I have 2 other Draft Pages. Ahmedadeljaff (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit them through the AfC process. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination for List of Mars Ravelo's Darna (2022 TV series) episodes?

I would like to address that this page I made is NOT a plagiarised from any website (that you claimed). The page contains only the ff:

• titles of each episodes — official episode titles taken from the streaming service iWantTFC (owned by the one who distributed the show — ABS-CBN)

• Social Media hashtag — official hashtag posted every day on weekdays by JRB Creative Production (the one who produced the show).

• The date it first aired and TV ratings of each episodes. — each of the TV ratings are all sourced (from the official account of GMA Public Affairs — one of the leading news outlets in the Philippines).

If you checked the history of the times the page was edited, you can see the page is updated every day, specifically every after each of the episode is aired on TV (except for the previous episodes that were moved from its main page). This page is designed after every single Philippine television show pages that has separate pages for the list of the shows episodes. There is nothing plagiarised from my work and they are all actively updated everyday. Loibird90 (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Hudson_(art_historian)

Dear 5969, Could I ask you to read one more article? Thank you in advance, as they say. Joan arden murray (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!.Joan arden murray (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Templating the regulars

Please don't apply the orphan template to articles that are less than three minutes old. Abductive (reasoning) 10:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, Abductive. AWB doesn't show how new the article is, nor who created it, so that's a bit problematic. When I'm creating a new article, I always (well, almost always) put {{construction}} on the page, AWB does show that or {{inuse}}, so it's easy to skip over those. And thanks for all your contributions to the project.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But the construction tag doesn't really apply to the task of adding incoming links. So a stub could be completely finished (I often do them in one or two edits), but still momentarily be an orphan. Abductive (reasoning) 10:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive - Let me check something out in a bit. AWB queues up in creation order, apparently beginning with the newest articles. After I finish the queue this morning, I'll check to see if it will queue in reverse order, and doesn't keep adding new stuff to the queue, that way, I won't be looking at just created articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy. Abductive (reasoning) 10:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive - okay, while I can't reverse sort by time, I can put them in alpha order, that should alleviate any issues about newness for the most part. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bath Interferometer

It looks like you reverted my recent changes to the Bath_interferometer_(common_path) page.

My changes were to remove mention of "on axis" Bath as I was mistaken when I originally discussed that - someone pointed out that a "on axis bath" is something completely different and not found in any published literature so I wanted to remove that term. Maybe I should explain this on the talk page? Is that the issue? Or in the edit summary? I may have forgotten to mention anything in the edit summary. Is that the issue? Gr5555 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you think that Gr5555, I've never edited the page, simply reviewed it. You can figure out who did the edit by looking at the page history. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Hmm. Okay. I'm now thinking I never finished my edits and hit the publish button. It's just that I got an email from wikipedia saying the page "had been changed" by you and when I looked there were no changes for months. Even though I was pretty sure I changed it a few days ago. I'll do my edits again. Gr5555 (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sagua la Chica

Hi, I want to make a page about the town of Sagua la Chica but it redirects to Camajuaní, the person who made it is inactive and in wondering if I should/could make the page? Thank you!CubanoBoi (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CubanoBoi - If you think there is enough sourcing to show that it meets notability criteria, it's perfectly fine to change the redirect into a regular page, as long as the Sagua la Chica you're creating is the same one as the one in Camajuani. If it isn't let me know and I'll turn the redirect into a dab page, and you can create a wholly new article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!!!!! CubanoBoi (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sani Maikatanga

Hello, friends, and thank you for your thoughts on the subject at hand. I saw your comment, which stated that the "article contains content that is written like an advertisement." Please keep in mind that I contributed to that article solely on the basis of my knowledge of the subject and nothing else. As a result, I recommend that you make any changes you deem necessary and remove the template message. You can, however, highlight to me the areas you believe are advertising him. You should understand that everyone has their own style of writing articles, which may be perceived as advertising by some. Thank you. Safercontent (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Quinlin, Arizona

The article Quinlin, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be the former site of a ranch; no evidence of a populated place.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tartron, Arizona

The article Tartron, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Railroad siding mislabeled as a populated place.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Beardsley, Arizona

The article Beardsley, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be nothing more than a former rail siding and depot, no evidence of a populated place.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Raso, Arizona

The article Raso, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable railroad stop

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Midway, Maricopa County, Arizona

The article Midway, Maricopa County, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable railroad siding

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Growler, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Growler, 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/Growler, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Saddle, Arizona

The article Saddle, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable rail siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Smurr, Arizona

The article Smurr, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a populated place at this location; name appears to refer to a railroad junction/depot area

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Serape, Arizona

The article Serape, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a populated place; name appears to refer to a depot/junction area

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dixie, Arizona

The article Dixie, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Rail depot mislabeled as a populated place

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Camel, Arizona

The article Camel, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable rail siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Griffith, Arizona

The article Griffith, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Railroad junction mislabeled as a populated place

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

draft:Hossein Kamalabadi

Greetings and courtesy. Please convert draft:Hossein Kamalabadi to article. Ostad10 (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

draft:Hossein Kamalabadi

Greetings and courtesy. Please convert draft to article. Ostad10 (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Gombe

Thank you for reviewing the subject page. Please note that two pages were introduced to it and I linked them to the page. Safercontent (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

draft: Bawdie

Pls my article Bawdie on Draft has been improved. Kindly review for me. Boadu Emma (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help re: possible merger of Freak Alley Gallery into Freak Alley

Hello Onel5969, do you think that Freak Alley Gallery that you recently reviewed should be merged into Freak Alley which has already existed for some years?

Altho I am not a new user, the procedure for doing mergers totally confuses me for some reason; I just can't seem to wrap my head around the instructions. Would you happen to know if there is a tool I can install to help with the process? I noticed that you a member of WikiProject:Merge, so thought you would be a good person to ask. Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Netherzone - Nice catch. I'd be happy to merge, but since there is really nothing to merge (except pics, which I would not merge as per NOTGALLERY), I've simply redirected it. And I agree, some of the processes can be daunting if you don't do them regularly. Personally, I used to always have to bring up the WP page on merging anytime I did one, until I merged 100 or so articles. Even now, it's still tricky for me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a quick response! I saw that you simply did a redirect, which in this case makes a lot of sense. Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks the merger procedure is daunting! All best, Netherzone (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orest_Semchishen

Dear Onel5969^{TT me}, Could you look at this article for me? Thank you, Joan arden murray (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there... you need to flesh out the lead. At the very least it should say what the subject is. Other than that, it's fine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do and thank you for advice, Joan arden murray (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the draft template?

Title. I made a page called Draft:Fusté but I don’t know what the template for drafts are, thank you CubanoBoi (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not sure what you're asking for here. You've created it in draft, there is no "template" for drafts. Are you trying to move it into mainspace? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I think you're looking for {{AfC submission|t}}. Press "Submit" in order to submit it. I added it here. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Burns, Arizona

The article Burns, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a community here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 12:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bledsoe, Arizona

The article Bledsoe, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a distinct community here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 12:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Berry, Arizona

The article Berry, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable railroad siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 12:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Lita Tresierra

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lita Tresierra, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not substantially identical to the deleted version. Thank you. $Salvio$ 19:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Granite Dells, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Granite Dells, 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/Granite Dells, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 02:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bradberry, Arizona

The article Bradberry, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a populated place at this location.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sawmill, Gila County, Arizona

The article Sawmill, Gila County, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a community; appears to be a ranch with a tank/pond named Sawmill

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hunter Creek Ranch, Arizona

The article Hunter Creek Ranch, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable subdivision.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared the issue

As you suggested recently in Ananya Raj, I have cleared the issues please take a look Ameer al safar (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, all you have there are press and promotional interviews, which don't go to notability. And only her upcoming role is potentially significant, so at best, a redirect to the film article if and when it is written would be appropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing Sri Ranveer Sanskrit Vidyalaya

Maybe there should have been an AfD for the 139 yr old school's article with consensus before blanking and redirecting it? User4edits (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe you could take the time to find 3 in-depth refs from independent reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Yes I would have had if you had WP:PROD or WP:AFD the article or even left a message on my Talk page before blanking and redirecting. User4edits (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was there for months without improvement. Exactly when did you plan on doing what you should have done in the first place? You do understand that redirection is deletion. If you want to add the necessary sourcing to show GNG, simply revert and add the citations. PROD or AFD simply wastes other editors' time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Webb, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Webb, 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/Webb, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Archae (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Archae (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review Article

Hi! My new friend, can you please review Shantikunj. There were too many issues like written like advertisement, may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject. So I have fixed that issues like removed uncited sentences and added reliable sources whose point of view is neutral so can you remove that template and mark it as reviewed? Contributor008 (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Saddle, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saddle, 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/Saddle, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 16:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Midway, Maricopa County, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Midway, Maricopa County, 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/Midway, Maricopa County, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Mall at the World Trade Center

Why did you revert/remove the split article of Mall at the World Trade Center ?

What is "WP:NSPLIT"?.. I can't find anything about NSPLIT. YitzhakNat (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typo. WP:SPLIT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of redirects on Family Guy episode articles

May want to keep an eye on Legobro99. They took it upon themselves to begin mass-reverting the redirects for Family Guy episode articles. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why? the Episodes are notable. Legobro99 (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not. And if you think they are, then put the effort into providing the citations and references to show they are. If you continue to edit war, you may get yourself blocked. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some folks are just not here to build an encyclopedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Tilak Weerasooriya being moved to draftspace

Hi, apologies for some of the information that appears to have not been sufficiently referenced.

However, Prof Weerasooriya was a former Dean of the University of Ruhuna (Faculty of Medicine), and also a Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) - Kotelawala Defence University.

Additionally, he pioneered in Sri Lanka, the first of many, including an Andrology Clinic, Sperm Bank, and National IVF Lab. As shown by his several published research papers and links (I cited 63 links as references, including news articles and publications). One of his colleagues was Susirith Mendis, and he worked with G. P. Samarawickrama.

Also, at the Kotelawala Defence University, the other Vice Chancellors are also included on Wikipedia, examples being ,Major General Milinda Peiris RWP RSP VSV,and Major General Sumith Balasuriya, USP, ndc, IG, SLA.

Regarding WP:COI or WP:UPE, please do further illustrate as to how I have violated that, I will then fix it or clarify it.

Kindly let me know, as to how this article continues to fall short of the notability guideline, thank you.

Any prominent physician or medical academic/professional in Sri Lanka can verify Prof Weerasooriya's credentials.

Looking forward to your reply.

Cheers. (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. To handle the evident COI/UPE issue, follow the steps given at either WP:COI or WP:UPE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mr. Fingers (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mr. Fingers (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Dhiren Bhagat

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dhiren Bhagat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not substantially identical to the deleted version. Thank you. $Salvio$ 17:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the reviews! X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 00:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purangan

please review Purangan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashanka Hazra (talk • contribs) 02:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kofi Donkor

Good day,

It is a great pleasure to meet you and I am excited to be actively part of the Wikipedia community.

To begin with, I realised my article was struck down because there were not enough information from notable sources to create a stub for the above mentioned personality.

However, I am of a contrary view as I have come across several notable sources and information on Alex Kofi Donkor. I am will be humbled if the page will be restored so that, I can continue with the work I started on the above mentioned personality.

Thank you and looking forward to your response.

Best Regards, Zekie The Geek Zekie The Geek (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Perhaps the best thing you can do is work on the article in the draft space, then when you think it's ready, I could review it for you. If you'd like to do that, I'll move your original into draft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to restore JL Toreliza article

Hello, I would like to appeal about the restoration of the page JL Toreliza because I believe I can improve the page to a better one. I am hoping for your consideration. Troy26Castillo (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to develop an article, the best way to do it is in Draft space, that way you can take your time and flesh the article out. The issue with the article you created was that there were simply not enough in-depth sources about the individual musician himself. Virtually everything was about him in respect to the band. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, I get it. Thank you for the tip. If in case that I can find sources about the said musician. I want to let you know and ask a permission, at the same time, if I can undone the last edit you did. Troy26Castillo (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've put it in draftspace for you, you can find it here: Draft:JL Toreliza, so that you can develop it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best Ex

Hi, inquiring about why the page for Best Ex was sent to draft after being published with no notes? Please advise. I have added additional information, and numerous sources are included, including links to related acts on Wiki. 2600:4041:54F1:1400:91B5:6FCA:6A32:F2FD (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was explained on the article creator's talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, seems like I definitely made an error. Thanks for your help! Newspapersky (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hawkins, Arizona

The article Hawkins, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable railroad siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tapco, Arizona

The article Tapco, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a community; just a TAPCO steam power plant.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tartron, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tartron, 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/Tartron, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 04:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Feaster, Arizona

The article Feaster, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a community at this location.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tully, Arizona

The article Tully, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, appears to be a railroad siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cork, Arizona

The article Cork, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a notable community.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Christian Ho

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Christian Ho, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article is more substantial and better sourced than last time, and he's racing in a better known championship now. Needs to go to AfD if required. Thank you. Ged UK 15:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Since I can't see the deleted version, I do it out of routine so it can be checked. I had already marked it "reviewed" in case this was the outcome, but thanks for letting me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question José Baroja

I am looking for the article about the writer José Baroja. I saw it yesterday, but now I can't find it. I was asked for an assignment at school. You can help me? How can I see it? Thank you very much. :) :) :) :) 45.232.254.50 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I already found it in "Draft". 45.232.254.50 (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft Volume Alpha

Hi there. Yesterday I split Minecraft Volume Alpha into its own article as per WP:BOLD and WP:SPLIT. The album is definitely considered notable as it has charted in the US, received substantial media coverage, and has received awards. Why was this new page then deleted again, without any update made to Music of Minecraft? Music of Minecraft is now left with broken links and almost no information for this album as the information I added in the new article was not pasted back into the original article. Thanks. Marcostev88 (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're talking about. Could you please provide a link? Looking at Minecraft Volume Alpha, that's only been a redirect since last November. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for not being too clear.

Yesterday I split Minecraft – Volume Alpha into its own article, originally it was only a section in the page Music of Minecraft. So on the Volume Alpha page, I removed the redirect and created a big article (revision as of 20 Sep 22:16). Then, I checked this morning and you had reverted the edits I made and it was a redirect again (revision as of 20 Sep 23:57). But after I posted the above message I undid your revision (as the article had no reason to be deleted; it was notable; and complied with WP:BOLD and WP:SPLIT) and now it's back to normal again (see most recent version), so I think it's all good from here. Sorry for the confusion! Marcostev88 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries... just couldn't figure out what you were talking about. There was an AfD back in 2011, which resulted in it being merged and redirected into the Minecraft article, which is why I reverted your changes. However, when I just looked at it again, there does seem to be new stuff which would go to notability. Looks good now and I've marked it as "reviewed". Thanks for your efforts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, appreciate it! Marcostev88 (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A.D. Guanacasteca

I notice you reverted the article creation back to a redir link any reason or reasons? Panama2005 (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those stated in the edit summary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero Sourcing" can you be more specific, I can add more external references.

Well -- zero as in none, nada, bupkus, nil; sourcing as in references. You need several in-depth sources from independent reliable sources in order to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Millard

When you get time, could you review this article? Thanks! Joan arden murray (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lone Butte Ranch, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lone Butte Ranch, 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/Lone Butte Ranch, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewiew my written article.

Can you review my this article Draft:Pranav Pandya (AWGP)? Is this person is notable or not? Contributor008 (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An All-Around Amazing Barnstar for you!

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		The name of the barnstar says it all. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You're doing excellent work as well. Keep it up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Oates

Hi I am trying to create a page for Daniel Oates and the link keeps being restored to Dan Oates? 82.40.91.84 (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Avra, Pinal County, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Avra, Pinal County, 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/Avra, Pinal County, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 04:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Spicy. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Look DS Service, 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.)

Spicy (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Any particular reason? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are incredibly dubious. e.g. this has the byline "Brought to you by Look DS", this seems to be a site that allows anyone to submit articles, this is written by an anonymous "Guest Author", this does not appear to be a legitimate news site and the article doesn't even make sense - it mentions the company and then goes into talking about BBC, Instagram and Facebook Live. I don't understand why you've marked this as reviewed again. Spicy (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The West News, OLM Ottawa Life, and Times of Malta all have editorial oversight. While I agree there is an issue with The West News article (it ends by saying, "see below", but never continues on... not sure if there is a missing link or what). Techround is also an RS, but that is just a brief mention. Galway Daily could possibly be problematic, but requesting articles is not the same as allowing anyone to post articles, and does have editorial oversight, and it is not listed as an unreliable source, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. I understand your concern, but disagree with it. Even with just the Times and OLM pieces barely put it over the GNG threshhold. The question becomes the byline of the Times article, which I agree with you is problematic, but not sure it is a press release or not. It could be. I marked it reviewed it again, since you did not explain why you had issues. Out of hundreds of times other editors have unreviewed articles I've reviewed, 99% of them are errors/misclicks while reviewing. The only two other times an editor has actually disagreed with my marking an article "reviewed", when they unreviewed it they explained why. So I thought you had simply misclicked, which is why I again marked it unreviewed. Feel free to unreview it again, but if you do, please tag it with your concerns (unreliable sources). And thanks for all your contributions on WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunately becoming more common for otherwise legitimate news sites to host poorly labelled sponsored content. Sorry for not explaining why I unreviewed it - I wasn't aware there was a way to do that through the page curation toolbar. I'll take the article to AfD, but it will have to wait until I'm not editing from mobile. Spicy (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"needs additional citations for verification" (Christophe Julien)

Onel5969: In future, rather than spend time on asking others to do things, would you mind taking a first try? You are not the only Wikipedian to do this, but I'm try to foster better usage of time as occasion arise. In your case, for Christophe Julien, would you mind trying yourself to find "additional citations for verification"? Gratefully - Aboudaqn (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In future, you might perhaps take your own advice and simply do the work to begin with, rather than expecting others to. And then further waste time by writing messages like this which take time to respond to. That would perhaps foster the best usage of everyone's time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How very unfortunate you should react this way. I thought the entry was sufficient; you did not... :( - Aboudaqn (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Narda Custodio (Darna 2022 TV Series)

Since the fictional character biography section was already removed, is it possible to remove the tag of the page? I'm gonna make a better biography for the fictional character. Also I hope this does not delete the page permanently. Loibird90 (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No. You removed the revdel tag prior to an admin performing the scrub. Please don't do that in the future. And then you added back the copyvio again. That way, the revdel would only cover up to the point it is requested. But nice job on improving the article after my first review. After the revdel is completed, you might want to reach out to the admin who does it, and ask regarding the history. And the revdel doesn't delete the page, just makes the history unviewable so that it adheres to copyright regulations. But please be careful, WP takes copyvios very seriously. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for responding. I'll be careful next time and do better. Im still a bit confuse, do I wait for the revdel tag to be removed eventually or do I do something for it to be removed? What do I do? Thank you. Loibird90 (talk)

Hi Loibird90 - There's nothing for you to do, an admin will take of the revdel, and then removed the tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. Thank you so much. Loibird90 (talk)

Proposed deletion of East Fort, Arizona

The article East Fort, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a populated place at this location.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 14:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Colcord Mountain Estates, Arizona

The article Colcord Mountain Estates, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable subdivision.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 14:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Flores, Arizona

The article Flores, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable railroad siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 14:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gillespie, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gillespie, 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/Gillespie, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Germann, Arizona

The article Germann, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable rail siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 15:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hollywood, Arizona

The article Hollywood, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Small subdivision with no evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 15:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the route section on road articles

Hello. I have noticed in the past few months that you have been deleting the route section on articles. This rule that you have suddenly made up is affecting Wikipedia, by the article not making sense. The 'in a nutshell' section says:

Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.

This isn't the first complaint about this subject, either. Only 5-6 days ago were you on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Citing The "Route Section" on Road Articles. I am just going to warn you that if you do not stop now, it will a visit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then report me. I have not made up WP:VERIFY, it's a core of WP. My removing the information means it is challenged. Therefore, as the WP policy says, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material". Further, WP:OR states, "The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged". And finally, WP:BURDEN says, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." and "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Again, WP policy. Failing to abide by WP policy might be construed as disruptive editing, see item #2 in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Roads4117 - I'll give you a chance to self-report, based on the above policies, or add the needed sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I am here - to tell you that there is no information showing that each paragraph has to have a citation, although you are being overzealous regarding citations. I have told the team at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways, to see what they think about it, although I think they will say to stop, or else you're banned indefinitely... Roads 4117 (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 From WP:V (specifically WP:BURDEN):

"When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable." (emphasis mine). WP:V states:

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." (again, emphasis mine)

Note the clear differentiation between "verifiable" and "inline citation" (or "cited"). Also note "likely to be challenged". You are being overzealous with removal of easily verifiable information, please stop. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep following policy, thank you. But thanks for all you do on the roads project. Very worthwhile. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't following policy, you're making up your own. Several editors (five, including myself) at WT:HWY#Citing The "Route Section" on Road Articles have commented against your actions, ranging from "what gives" to potentially disruptive editing. We have a {{citation needed}} tag for a reason, use it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please read the policies I've listed above. You simply stating over and over, I'm not following policy doesn't mean I'm not following policy. I've stated the 3 policies explicitly above. Cherry-picking them in attempt to make them say what you want them to say is simply a waste of time. And again, thanks for your efforts on WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I don't see how quoting the majority of the only part of the intro of WP:V to mention citations is cherry-picking, but feel free to point out the part that says "all content must include a citation" or something remotely similar from the policy you claim to be following.

Second, even your quote of WP:OR above contains: "The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation."

Third, WP:BURDEN is a subsection link to WP:V, so that's two policies. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, when you only take part of a policy, while leaving out other parts, that's cherry picking.

Second, that's the very definition of cherry-picking, saying, even your quote of WP:OR above contains. The next sentence reads, "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged." (emphasis mine). If material is removed, by definition, it is challenged. Period.

Third, okay, 2 policies, rather than 3, so, whatever. Bottom line is, these are policies. Two of them. Of which you are arguing against. You have stated zero policy positions. So unless you have something of substance to add, please desist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right... and you are not cherry picking and using circuitous logic? You aren't challenging the information, you're challenging the lack of a citation. You are also biting at a newcomer. I know you'll circle back to that single sentence of WP:V, so here's some more cherry picking, the very first sentence of WP:OR:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a]"

[a] reads: "By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source."

And even though you'll toss the following away as an essay, even though it's possibly the most referenced essay on Wikipedia and makes direct reference to the emphasis you just provided, Wikipedia:When_to_cite#Challenging_another_user's_edits states:

"Challenges should not be frivolous: Challenges should not be made frivolously or casually, and should never be made to be disruptive or to make a point. Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate."

I'm not going to bother adding emphasis, every single word is relevant. And no, I will not desist. I am also a stubborn mule. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you do not seem to understand the difference between an essay and actual policy, that's pretty sad. And regarding cherry picking, I'm using the entirety of the policy, not picking sentence fragments out to distort what the policy says. And challenging huge blocks of uncited text is not frivolous. As two other editors on the Roads talk page have said, the citations should be there (while at the same time disagreeing with my removal of the uncited text). And even when quoting the essay, again you cherry pick. The second sentence of the very passage you quote says, "Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate." Again, large blocks of uncited text are always inappropriate.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that it's a 6 vs 2, and two will win?? Roads4117 (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you stop? It has nothing to do with numbers... it has to do with policy. As I've said repeatedly to you, and for some reason, you seem unwilling or incapable of understanding. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see ANI notice below

could you please omit these articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helga_Pakasaar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynda_Gammon

I looked into them thoroughly, just not enough there - if you agree. Joan arden murray (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do a WP:BEFORE, but I agree with the current sourcing, neither meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

This edit [1] misplaced the notability tag. It goes after the short description, per MOS:LAYOUT. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's an automated process through the Curation tool. Hmmm... I wonder if that's a glitch. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Roads4117 (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Donchak Redirect

Thanks for checking on this new page creation Onel5969! I see you've redirected it to the project this person is most linked to via citations. I've now found more on a separate SUNDANCE project they STUNT CHOREOGRAPHED for Hong Kong Master WONG KAR-WAI and am intersted in balancing out the musical film with that. A stunt man who also stars in musicals is pretty random and interesting, thoughts?

Thank you, Intomoviesplus (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting no doubt, but does it pass WP:GNG? I didn't do a WP:BEFORE, but you would need 3 in-depth references about the individual himself from independent, reliable sources to show notability. They can't be just mentions, are associated with the person. So for example, an article about the artist from the Sundance Film Festival is not independent, but an article in the Denver Post which goes into detail about the artist (and not the film), would qualify. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Join the NPP Discord!

Hey @Onel5969, a bunch of us from NPP have a Discord server where we talk about NPP and bounce ideas off each other. You should come by and say hi! [2] Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. It's good fun. Ovinus (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. Live chat is great for socializing and making NPP work more fun. Maybe someday I can convince @Kudpung and @MB to join too ;-) –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, NL. 28 years ago I found Internet chat rooms slightly interesting because they were a novelty, but I was already too old for them and I had a very busy real social life in a European city which has some of the best food and wine in the world. But don't let me deter the rest of you from having fun. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lol...bit of a luddite myself. I had to look up what Discord was... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you, the only reason I learned about it was because my college friends wanted to move off Facebook. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your review of Sivan-Garburg Duo Piano

Thank you for your time and effort reviewing the page. I understand and accept your comment about the lack of references, however I want to assure you that I created the page on my own initiative, and I receive no benefits for doing this. My motivation is the same as yours and many other editors: to enrich Wikipedia. I intend to add references where necessary. At least one reference will be in Hebrew but this is easily translatable to English by Google Translate. Thanks again. Motizin (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

In 2019 you participated in a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastique Tiara, which resulted in a consensus to redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11). I have now taken the article to deletion review, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 September 28#Plastique Tiara. I am informing everyone who participated in the deletion discussion, except two indef-blocked accounts and an IP address which last edited two years ago, in case they would like to contribute to the deletion review. JBW (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for reviewing all my outstanding articles. Appreciate your efforts. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries... thank you. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about the people?

Thanks for your edit. You have asked for "extra references" without specifying where you want them. This article has plenty of references, and I doubt there are more around online. Could you please indicate what you mean?

Evadeluge (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please provide a link. Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he means this article which you reviewed and tagged. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any assertion you make in an article should come from a source, as per WP:VERIFY. So for example, the opening sentence of the "Poems by Merv Lilley" section... where did you get that info from? Same with the section "Joint writing" and "Songs". And even though refs are not required in the lead, that goes on the assumption that the lead is summary of the article, and that they are referenced in the article. For instance, in the lead you state, "It was the first book-length publication of poetry by either poet." Yet you do not discuss that concept in the article, and nowhere is it referenced. You make at least four other assertions in the lead which are not referenced anywhere in the article. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Onel5969. Thank you for creating PeopleSound. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice job on the article. Keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about NPP

I've been getting back into NPP and have noticed that some of the pages in the feed you've tagged with notability/some other maintenance template, but haven't marked as reviewed. Is there a reason you choose to do that without marking them as formally "reviewed"? I want to make sure I'm not screwing anything up by going back over them! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 18:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to, especially on the older articles, the ones on the back of the queue. On those, it's usually because I don't think they are notable, and I've either prodded or AfD'd them, and the prod has been challenged, or the AfD has resulted in no consensus. Or I turned them into a redirect, and someone has reversed the redirect. So I'll tag them as notability concerns, and let another reviewer take a whack at them. On the newer ones, it's one of two reasons. Either it's because I do not think they are notable, but am not quite sure enough to prod/AfD them, so I'll mark them to let others know I think there's an issue, but if someone else thinks they pass, that's great. Those will get notability tags. The other ones I'll tag for a deficiency (like they need more refs, etc.), and not mark them reviewed, so that if another reviewer comes along (or I come back to it on my next pass through the queue), and it hasn't been corrected, I'll draftify or nominate for deletion, depending. Hope what I've written makes sense. I know it does in my head.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Larry Dvoskin

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Larry Dvoskin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Hi Onel, I declined your G4 request because the new submission differed from the deleted page. You may have to go through AfD to remove this one. . Thank you. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology

@Onel5969 Thank you for suggesting improving the article on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. The article requires some work. I disagree with your opinion, though, on notability. The organisation, which the article describes, is the largest of that kind in the archaeological community. It is not WP:CORP ("Company"), but rather WP:ORG. Its size and importance in the field are comparable to that of IEEE in computing. I would be grateful if you remove your suggestion Nbarchaeo (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Size has nothing to do with it. Quite honestly, I was a bit shocked at the dearth of coverage of this organization. The IEEE is heavily covered. What you need to do is find some non-primary sources which go in-depth about the organization. I couldn't find any. If you do that, I'll be happy to take another look. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 The problem with finding sources is that many organizations named CAA exist. If someone is not an archaeologist, or at least not an old one or a person not interested in digital archaeology, he/she will not know what CAA is. But similarly to the geographic articles, you have written. Generally, if you write "Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology" in quotes google scholar you will 6970 search entries since 1973. The papers are not about CAA, of course, but they are references to papers and papers published within CAA. In my opinion, that proves that CAA is relevant. I have found 4 references mentioning the importance of the CAA in the history of the development of digital methods in archaeology, though. Nbarchaeo (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC). Do you think it would be enough?[reply]

Page triage

Hi Onel5959, I have seen that you can tag pages without marking the page as reviewed. If I tag a page for maintenance, the check of the NPP toolbar becomes green, and then I have to unreview the page again myself, if I am not so comfortable with approving the article. So my question is how do you do tag an article without marking it as reviewed? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that has changed now, so that when you tag an article, the "mark as reviewed" button no longer is auto checked. But if it is, simply click on it to uncheck it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful reply.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Tanushree Chatterjee

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tanushree Chatterjee, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanushree Chatterjee was in 2017 with the substantive deletion rationale neatly summarised as WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice to a second nomination. . Thank you. User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there... not quibbling with your decision, I routinely send these to G4 since I can't see the originally deleted article. But you state "the substantive deletion rationale neatly summarised as WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice to a second nomination." Are you saying that's why YOU are rejecting the G4? Or that that was the AfD rationale? If the former, cool, thank you, if the latter, where did I miss that? The way I read the AfD, the result was simply, "The result was delete." Again not quibbling, just want to make sure I'm not missing something. Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography tagging

Thank you for all the NPP work you're doing! As a small suggestion, I wanted to say to watch out when setting the "living" parameter on WikiProject Biography, as I've noticed a few you've done for living people where it's set to "living=no", e.g. Anjali Kusumbe. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up... I never "set" the parameter to "no". When using the rating tool, you have to click on the box to mark it "living", but not clicking it shouldn't mark them as dead. The next time I use that tool, I'll double check after I make the edit, and see if it's an issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, not ideal if it sets "no" by default. I assume the tool creator thought that was a better outcome than them being flagged up on Category:Biography articles without living parameter. Setting it to something appears to be mandatory. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I just checked, and if you do not check the box, it does default to dead. Thank you so much for spotting that, I'll make sure to always check the box for living in the future. The issue will be when I can't ascertain whether or not the individual is still alive. For instance, sometimes, the article will not have a date of death, and if they were born from 1920 on, there is the chance they are still alive. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's up to our best judgement when using the tool in that case. Personally I'd be inclined to say for anyone after about 1920 assume they are alive unless it explicitly mentions they died (doesn't need a date). -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emptying the articles

What are you doing? I have put two sources from a highly credible football site. How can I put a source for the match schedule? What you do is not constructive. Sakiv (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just left a message on your talk page. The two sources you have put on both of those pages do not include the information in those tables. The tables you have inserted have a place to insert the report for each match. You have used it on other pages you have created (or someone else has). All info on WP must meet WP:VERIFY. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the matches in the first source of Mallorca and in the second source of Osnabrück. You are wasting our times for no reason. Tag the articles!--Sakiv (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Jersey

I've declined the revdel request on Beautiful Jersey as it looks to be out of copyright material. As far as I can tell Lennox died in 1906 so in any jurisdiction where copyright in pma+100 or less, it's out of copyright. For the US it was registered for copyright in 1944 but I can't find it in the renewals database anywhere so it looks to be PD in the US as well. Nthep (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where redirects should point.

You recently turned African Beauty (song) from an article to a redirect. You redirected to the artist, rather than the album. If you are going to be lazy when creating redirects then I shall be equally lazy in reverting you. Pls redirect to the album, where appropriate. Thanks. Richhoncho (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're going to be lazy and not understand that either target is acceptable (since it is mentioned on both), not much can be done for you. From NSONG: "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship Request

Hi @user:Onel5969, I trust you are doing well. In the past few years, I have made some meaningful edits, made mistakes and try to effect correction when my attention is drawn. However, I would like to step up volunteering activities on the collaborative project. Hence, my humble request for mentorship for NPR/NPP in helping reduce the burden on the existing reviewers/patrollers.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Best regards Fatimah (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan

Talia Or, fascinated 3 October, article begun 4 October, waiting for a review until 5 October, hardly added: orphan tag. I like to first write something substantial and then link. For a person born here, studied there, it would really not be hard to place a link or two, instead of a tag. Just my view. I fixed it now, but imagine I had gone out for hours as planned ... -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, apologies for that, did not see that you had done the article (AWB) doesn't do that, and I missed it when I double-checked. I try not to template the regulars (and certainly not someone of your stature). FWIW, I actually tagged myself yesterday, see this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that's funny, thank, makes me feel much better --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draftification of the page Barak Turkmens

Dear Onel5969,

Thank you for reviewing this article. If possible, I would like to learn the specific reason behind why this article was moved to the draft space, because compared to most articles that were turned to drafts, this article had much more content and better-quality sources (the bulk of the sources coming from academic papers or books). Moreover, none of the sources have a conflict of interest. After the draftification, I tried to back up unsourced bits or remove them for the moment, but the change wasn't substantial, since most of the content was supported by the sources provided. I have the feeling that because I didn't use repeated references, it may have been misunderstood that some full paragraphs (in the History section) were not backed up with sources. Though, in those cases, the sources listed at the end of the section would be supporting them. This would be a mistake on my behalf, which I tried to address in my further edits. Still, I am confused on the exact reason and would be delighted if you were to clarify it and/or give some feedback on the current state of the page. I will have to contest this decision.

Thank you. Ayıntaplı (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been off computer since you asked this question. I would have moved it back to mainspace, which you have already done. And Arthistorian1977 has already marked it reviewed. While not required, it's better to make sure that each assertion has a footnote, and the changes you've made are perfectly fine. Thank you for your efforts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Save my article

Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I've created The article 1994-95 Toros Neza season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95_Toros Neza_season

Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I've created The article 1994-95 Club Puebla season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95_Club_Puebla_season

Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I've created The article 1994-95 Santos Laguna season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95_Santos Laguna_season

Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I've created The article 1994-95 Cruz Azul season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1994–95 Cruz Azul season

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoAcosta9 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HugoAcosta9 to save the owner of this page from replying to your four requests, it is not up to them. It is up to you. Improve the articles with the references asked for, and ensure that each deletion discussion is made ware that you have done so.

Asking in four different sections shows lack of restraint. I have compressed these into one section. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to you Mister Onel5969, I realized it was a misunderstanding, one of my subsections "Matches" was unsourced, now I include the link and reference. I thought The Banner was speaking about my whole article. I know Timtrent and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Satkhol

Hi Onel5969. Hope you are keeping well. Thanks for reviewing this article and giving your suggestions. However the subject of the article is a tourist place and being a small village it doesnt have much reliable sources. I observe many villages,towns,cities having main space articles though not having sufficient references. Kindly share your inputs. Gardenkur (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Long time no speak. Hope you are well also. To establish notability of a place you need to have in-depth coverage. Obviously, this does not have that. Where did you get the information in the Background section? Was that from some type of government census site? If so, if you include that source, it passes WP:GEOLAND. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969. Sorry saw your note late. Thanks for your suggestion. However I noticed villages and towns with no substantial coverage but exists as they are geographical identity. Sure will try to get references for content in background section. Gardenkur (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969. Can you review once as I have added references and let me know if its good to move to main space. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! Have moved it back into mainspace. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969. Thanking you for helping me on this through your guidance. Would like to associate more with you in making Wikipedia a wonderful platform for informational puposes. Gardenkur (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can always ask for help, as I said, keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes Rolled Back

Hi user:Onel5969, I recently made changes to the Openserve page and I see that all the changes and reinstatement of the dedicated entry for Openserve was completely rolled back. I need to understand why, as the issues with Openserve having a dedicated page (it was a division of Telkom not a separate entity) has changed. Openserve should no longer be redirected to the Telkom page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasdebruyneFalcorp (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "seperate entity" is irrelevant. There was an AfD discussion which decided that Telkom should be redirected to the other page. Are you associated with the corporation in some way? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Podedworny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Millard

Could you review these 2 articles when you get a chance? Thank you, Joan Murray Joan arden murray (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I had already reviewed the Millard article last month, and it looks good. I removed a peacock reference in the lead from the Podedworny article. If sources say she was a pioneer, then that should be in the body of the article, with a reference. If they do refer to her that way, then it's fine to put back in the lead. The lead should also be expanded. There is enough stuff in this article that a four-five sentence summary should suffice. Actually, same with the Millard article. Other than that, very nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. will do. JoanJoan arden murray (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me please? By accident, correcting Carol Podedworny, I blanked the page. Could you put it back? I don't know what I did. The instructions to unblank it are gibberish to me.Joan arden murray (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody restored it. In the future, if that happens, simply go to the history of the page, and click "undo" on the edit which blanked the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. JoanJoan arden murray (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed content which was attributed

You removed a ton of World Ringette Championships event pages which had information collected from the World Ringette Championships article (and was improved) but was removed from the WRC to reduce the size of the WRC article. Can you please explain how this is reasonable considering this content had been approved for years but had only been moved then tweaked? CheckersBoard (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was uncited. Please see WP policy, WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 World Ringette Championships - thanks!

Wow were you ever right! It looks like it had only one source! I had to figure out how to view the old page. I panicked thinking everything was gone but one source? o_O I can only say thank-you, that article was a yikes lol. Sorry for the trouble :) CheckersBoard (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mount Trumbull, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mount Trumbull, 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/Mount Trumbull, Arizona 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 until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bhawi

This is a village in Rajasthan. I think it is to be added to Wikipedia. MahendraPrajapatKhejarla (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to add sources which show that it indeed exists, and is recognized by the government. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amparo Serrano contested deletion

Amparo Serrano This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because they copied the text that I wrote and I can prove it. It is obvious that I wrote it first because of the hyperlinks to "abortion debate" and "girl group" that are internal articles of Wikipedia, so they stole my original text. Mruanova (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, an admin who has more expertise than I do in these matters will take a closer look, if what you say is true (and I have no reason to believe it is not), they'll remove the tag. You've already voiced this on the talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bhawi

This page is a about a village and official government reference has been added. MahendraPrajapatKhejarla (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undo redirect: McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences

Dear User @Onel5969,

I request that you undo the auto redirect of the page entitled "McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences," of which I spent hours creating and editing, to the page "McGill University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences." I created this page for the purpose of public knowledge and information. The McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences is an entirely separate organization to that of its parent institution. The McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences has enough significant history, activity, and information to deem a unique Wikipedia page necessary. Furthermore, I have added original sentences with proper citations, according to APA citation stylings. Therefore, your redirect is not valid and your reasoning is unfounded. Please follow up immediately. The information I put on the page was common knowledge and the factual information was cited correctly. There is no reason why the page is being redirected. Justinhandgregory (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is relevant. What is relevant was the dearth of in-depth coverage of the entity from reliable independent sources, which is the WP policy which was cited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported to the Wikipedia administrator's noticeboard. McGill University has many other schools and departments listed on Wikipedia that have not been redirected to their parent institutions, some even with more blatant copyright violations. Your reasoning is unfounded and is a misuse of your admin power. Additionally, had you let me work on the page a bit, plenty of in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources would have been added. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify their above comment that you have been reported to the Wikipedia administrator's noticeboard, they opened at discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in which you are mentioned. The topic is Unfounded reasoning and misuse of power for redirection of a page. I only mention this because it doesn't appear that you were actually notified of this. - Aoidh (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the head's up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nick Wolny

Hello, I appreciate your review of my article however it has been moved to draft-space by another reviewer. I just wanted to let you know that I have submitted it to the article creation queue for assessments and removed your maintenance tags because the article is no longer in the main-space. Kspoty (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove Robert Campbell (artist)? Why?

Hi @Onel5969. Eight days ago, you reviewed a page I created, Robert Campbell (artist). Now it's gone. What happened? Can you please help me get it back? Pcaabplroa (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It did not have enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass notability criteria (WP:GNG). It was redirected to Brass Tacks Press. If you would like to work on it, I could move it into draft for you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

orphan page

@Onel5969, page link has been created. so Mara Rudman is not an orphan page now.- AbuSayeed (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. I've removed the tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help move Nederlandse Stoomboot Maatschappij

Hi @Onel5969 as you noted on my talk page, please help move Nederlandse Stoomboot Maatschappij to Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij (with 'ch'). This move is blocked by Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij currently being a redirect page to Fijenoord.Grieg2 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nice job on the article, keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick action! I added a new infobox image to Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij, which explains the relation to its shipyard Fijenoord.Grieg2 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Six Super Universities

Hi colleague, the proposed page does have factual bases which have been included in the draft. See e.g. "World Reputation Rankings 2016 methodology". Times Higher Education (THE). 2016-05-04. Retrieved 2022-10-08. Btnls (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's a real concept is fine. But not relevant to WP:GNG. You need several in-depth sources from independent, reliable references which talk about it, in order to show it's notable. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the page 'Su Shihao' redirected?

Hello fellow editor, the page 'Su Shihao' was created by me and focuses on a player for Qingdao Youth Island football club, I don't know why yesterday it was reviewed and redirected to the page of the football club by you. I hope this could be reverted.

Hi. Two things first. Whenever you leave a message for someone, please remember to sign it with four tildes (<nowiki>Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)</nowiki<). Second, please leave a link to whatever it is you are talking about. Now about the player, as was said in the edit summary: not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McKendrick (DA RSW RGI)

Makes no sense in putting a CSD tag on a redirect - the CSD tag goes on the actual article, which when deleted means the redirect is no longer valid and can be deleted. Dan arndt (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was running copyvio while you were redirecting. When I added it, it was a page. Also, the source you reference in your CSD, doesn't really state its copyright procedure, the second source, which was the one I referenced, should probably be used. Most likely not a big deal. Thanks for your help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem both the article and the redirect have been deleted now. Dan arndt (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't figure it would be... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hi, today Draft:Habib_Alejalil rejected with the reason "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" but there is enough reliable sources to verify for example [3] [4] [5] can you please look into draft and tell me your opinion about it? ZEP55 (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for reply. ZEP55 (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my articles

Hello, I noticed you have been and still are deleting the content of my articles without at least moving them to draft or putting tags on them for me know whats wrong. Can I ask for you to move them to put them in draft or add tags without deleting please? Larasabri401 (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to let me know which articles, and I'll be happy to move them to draft for you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Tale of the Travelling Seagull, In the Harbour of Days, The Puppet (Novel), Two Rooms and a Hall Larasabri401 (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The first one is at Draft:The Tales of the Traveling Seagull 2, Draft:The Puppet (novel), Draft:In the Harbour of Days, and Draft:Two Rooms and a Hall. And they were never deleted, they were redirected to the author's article. And as was said in the edit summary, there are not enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

warina hussain

what is the issue with the biography of the actress Warina Hussain? have provided adequate references. And why is it being redirected to create ambiguity, either delete it or allow editors to expand it, why is it being redirected to one film only. Kindly participate in article talk page, notability changed overtime June to Oct 2022Fostera12 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was the consensus of a very recent AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you tag my article for notability?

Why did you tag Gaotang Long for notability? There are two sources and a search of Google Books finds quite a few more. Mucube (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It only has two sources, one of which is unreliable. Another issue, although it does not go to notability, is that is has zero footnotes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I didn't use footnotes because I didn't find the need for it. I use both of the sources throughout the entire page.

Second, what is the unreliable source you are mentioning? Mucube (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what happens when another editor adds something to the page? Anyway, chinaknowledge is not a reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will be adding footnotes. But why is Chinaknowledge unreliable? Mucube (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrant House

Hi! I've seen that you moved the page Quadrant House to the draft space. Nonetheless, I believe the article should be moved back to the mainspace since it is about a national heritage listed building. As such, it is convention that the very same source from the national register are enough to demonstrate the article's notability. Moreover, in addition to that I have also included an additional source, thus more than satisfying the sources requirements. I'd be glad if you could revert the move. Thank you! Plumbago Capensis (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've moved it back, but right now it has zero independent reliable sources, which is why it was moved to draft to begin with. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thank you for the intervention. Why do you say it has no independent sources? The article has a link with the proper SAHRA listing details, plus a reference to another catalog, independent from SAHRA (the 'Artefacts' reference). What I want to say is that in my opinion the article satisfies notability and the the independent reliable sources requirement, too.--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding lack of good sources for "Women's Indian Premier League"

Here are five sources that could be used for that article: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/bcci-set-to-launch-five-team-womens-ipl-in-march-2023-1339813, https://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/124105/bcci-considers-5-teams-2-venues-20-league-matches-for-inaugural-wipl, https://theprint.in/sport/womens-ipl-set-to-take-place-in-march-with-5-teams-max-5-overseas-players-in-xi/1166291/, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/ipl/top-stories/womens-ipl-set-to-take-place-in-march-2023-with-5-teams/articleshow/94835731.cms, https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/five-teams-in-womens-ipl-with-22-matches-to-be-played-bcci-8207222/. With these sources, would you be willing to reinstate the article? GreekApple123 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Look Sorry.....

I'm just fustrated that you Turned my Oggy Next Gen page into a redirect. I don't know how to do the opposite of "not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass GNG, nor VERIFY". PickleAndPeanutFan (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PickleAndPeanutFan: You'd have to find in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources that show it's notable. If secondary reliable sources don't exist then the article shouldn't be here because it's not able to be verified as notable, even if you watched a lot of it. The reasons provided in the edit summary for redirecting (WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:VERIFY) are very basic/core tenets of policy/guidelines so I'd advise brushing up on those to be sure you have some basic Wikipedia competence under your belt with which to edit. (Also, I'd recommend reading WP:CIVIL (also a basic/core tenet, though in the user behavior sphere rather than the content one) since I happened to be glancing at your contribs and saw your original reverted edit to this page which was very uncivil.) - Purplewowies (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't draft legitimate stubs

The ofgem reference is perfectly sufficient. Leave it in main space. I notice you disruptively draft a disproportionate amount of articles. Please consider becoming an inclusionist and expand articles instead of letting them languish in draft space where they will be deleted after six months. DonkeyW (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider becoming a competent contributor. I have no idea what you are talking about, since you did not leave a link. And uncivil comments are not really the way to approach someone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sock; blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Lechang

I made some updates and added some book/journal articles as references as you suggest. Could you please review the updated draft ? Thank you. Inuyasha2021 (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Inuyasha2021 I'll take a look in 24 hours or so (ping me if I forget), came across this page through random AFC, ref 5 seems promising but there is likely no significant coverage on the character herself but more on the general story. (although zh wiki redirects zh:破镜重圆 to zh:乐昌公主). Will leave a note on your talk page after review. Justi yaya 18:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kondaveeti_Venkatakavi

I noticed you removed Kondaveeti_Venkatakavi page. He is well known poet and has books and movies to his credit. You can verify from other Telugu language wikipedians. He has even an article in telugu wikipedia. I put more information on talk page of article. I reverted changes. Please let me know if you disagree and what else I can do to improve your confidence.

mlpkr (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,305: / Line 1,305: @@
 :@[[User:Inuyasha2021|Inuyasha2021]] I'll take a look in 24 hours or so (ping me if I forget), came across this page through random AFC, ref 5 seems promising but there is likely no significant coverage on the character herself but more on the general story. (although zh wiki redirects [[:zh:破镜重圆]] to [[:zh:乐昌公主]]). Will leave a note on your talk page after review. [[User:Justiyaya|'''<span style="color:#1d556d">Just</span>''']][[Special:Contributions/Justiyaya|'''<span style="color:#000000">i</span>''']][[User talk:Justiyaya#top|'''<span style="color:#6d351d">yaya</span>''']] 18:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
+== Kondaveeti_Venkatakavi ==
+I noticed you removed [[Kondaveeti_Venkatakavi]] page. He is well known poet and has books and movies to his credit. You can verify from other [[Telugu]] language wikipedians. He has even an article in telugu wikipedia. I put more information on talk page of article. I reverted changes. Please let me know if you disagree and what else I can do to improve your confidence.
+[[User:Mlpkr|mlpkr]] ([[User talk:Mlpkr|talk]]) 03:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:42, 16 October 2022

Edit Count

Wiki mark-up link

Other useful links

Links for new editors

Notability Tag

Promotion

Request for Training

Tags

Speedy deletion declined: World Vaisnava Association

Welcome back

Board of Trustees election

Proposed deletion of Paulcell Place, Arizona

Regarding "Battle of Narnaul"

Added links and removed orphan

NPP Award for 2018

Proposed deletion of Point of Rocks, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Big Horn, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Lone Mountain Ranch, Arizona

Speedy deletion declined: Mk.gee

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Proposed deletion of Lone Butte Ranch, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Granite Dells, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Flower Pot, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Mangum Springs, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Diamond Bell Ranch, Arizona

Draft Pages

Speedy deletion nomination for List of Mars Ravelo's Darna (2022 TV series) episodes?

Templating the regulars

Bath Interferometer

Proposed deletion of Quinlin, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Tartron, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Beardsley, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Raso, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Midway, Maricopa County, Arizona

Nomination of Growler, Arizona for deletion

Proposed deletion of Saddle, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Smurr, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Serape, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Dixie, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Camel, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Griffith, Arizona

draft:Hossein Kamalabadi

draft: Bawdie

Help re: possible merger of Freak Alley Gallery into Freak Alley

What is the draft template?

Proposed deletion of Burns, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Bledsoe, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Berry, Arizona

Speedy deletion declined: Lita Tresierra

Nomination of Granite Dells, Arizona for deletion

Proposed deletion of Bradberry, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Sawmill, Gila County, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Hunter Creek Ranch, Arizona

Cleared the issue

Clearing Sri Ranveer Sanskrit Vidyalaya

Nomination of Webb, Arizona for deletion

Speedy deletion nomination of Archae (disambiguation)

Review Article

Nomination of Saddle, Arizona for deletion

Nomination of Midway, Maricopa County, Arizona for deletion

Revert of Mall at the World Trade Center

Removal of redirects on Family Guy episode articles

About Tilak Weerasooriya being moved to draftspace

Speedy deletion nomination of Mr. Fingers (disambiguation)

Speedy deletion declined: Dhiren Bhagat

A barnstar for you!

Purangan

Alex Kofi Donkor

Appeal to restore JL Toreliza article

Best Ex

Proposed deletion of Hawkins, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Tapco, Arizona

Nomination of Tartron, Arizona for deletion

Proposed deletion of Feaster, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Tully, Arizona

Proposed deletion of Cork, Arizona

Speedy deletion declined: Christian Ho

Question José Baroja

Minecraft Volume Alpha