User talk:OlifanofmrTennant

If you can't find what your looking for then idk kinda a skill issue. I guess check the archives.
I will ocasionally add a seperate section in my archives for discussions that pertain to me or I participate in. If you find one it isn't a mistake, leave it there.

As opposed to other editors I DO review drafts on request. However I try not to review a draft twice, while I have broken this rule in the past but I wont do it for you. IF YOU ASK ME TO LOOK AT A DRAFT LINK TO THE DRAFT If you don't I will acknowledged you as much as the K in Octopus is acknowledged.

Multiple messages received about your work as an AfC reviewer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

moved to WP:ANI#User:OlifanofmrTennant's review history at Articles for Creation. Fork99 (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Hi there, I appreciate your work you've done to help new editors create new articles and expand Wikipedia. However, you've received multiple messages in the span of the past two-three days informing you of mistakes that you have made, with little to no explanation of why these occurred. I note that you were accepted by @Primefac as an AfC reviewer on 23 August 2023 in this diff on a probationary basis. It would good if you could please explain your mistakes from your perspective.

Links to messages left on your talk page in chronological order:

• User talk:OlifanofmrTennant/Archive 1#Your AfC review of Cover-up of rape at Johnny & Associates
  • Note from me about article that should not have been accepted as it was a content fork; copypasted directly from another article. Timestamp: 11:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• User talk:OlifanofmrTennant/Archive 1#Poorly worded decline rationale in Draft:Donald Eugene Fields II
  • Note from @Ca. Timestamp: 16:59, 2 September 2023
• User talk:OlifanofmrTennant/Archive 1#Draft:Elsie M. Lewis - Decline reason
  • Note from @Rich Smith. Timestamp: 22:09, 2 September 2023
• User talk:OlifanofmrTennant/Archive 1#Your submission at Articles for creation: Prochnost (Arrow) has been accepted
  • This is a note indicating a self-accepted AfC. Timestamp: 03:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• User talk:OlifanofmrTennant/Archive 1#I have sent you a note about a page you started
  • My note regarding your self-accepted AfC of the draft you created at Prochnost (Arrow). Timestamp: 04:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Fork99 (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

For the first one I hadnt relised that it was stolen as I didnt notice that there was another article.

For the second one was just poor wording on my part.

For the third I was trying to get through more AfC submittions that were 20 days old and was tired. I see that the issues were fixed and I was in the process of accepting it as this was happening.

For the fourth and fifth I explained on that talk page which I will link here. :D OLI 05:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

What can I do to ensure that these problems dont reappear so I can move on from probationary :D OLI 05:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

In relation to third, I find your reasoning a bit strenuous. I sent you the message on your user talk page at 22:09 UK Time. You then accepted the article at 06:20. This is NOT 'in the process of accepting it as this was ahappening' - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 06:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I mixed up what meant to say was as that specific thread was going on. I was working on accepting it before I got this notification :D OLI 06:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have adhd sometimes brain no-worky but yeah I was doing it when Fork99 sent their message. :D OLI 06:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: I have removed (UTC) from some timestamps in my original post as it made the software think that they were signatures, but they're not. Fork99 (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I've had my first article declined by this user due to the subject band or topic not being notorious, when in reality this is a band that has been touring and influencing Latin rock bands for more than 20 years. Also I was asked (and I paraphrase) the band does not have a page so why would it have an article for an album. They also have a page in Spanish and another one in French. Seems pretty notable to me... Hammsilv (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Youre ignoring problems with the article. The informal tone "the album's popularity exposed, and is still exposing", use of external links in the article, bad uses of wikilinks, and the lack of reception or devolplement information. You're trying to kick me while I'm down, in hopes of getting your poorly constructed draft published. :D OLI :D OLI 06:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Still doesn't explain the use of the Reject button... yes, the draft has issues but that doesn't make it flat out rejectable - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 06:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

if that's what you think then you have bigger issues that you need to work on. Furtermore, there was no mention of anything about these issues in your previous message. What's more, I don't know you to try to "kick you while you're down". However, your communication tone evidently shows frustration with other problems you have.

Good luck. Hammsilv (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the band didnt have a page. I was checking my web browser history and when looking for the page I looked for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BohemiaSuburbana, exluding the space between the words. :D OLI 07:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Also 'the lack of reception or development information'... this is not a requirement, as long as it passes the notability requirement - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 07:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Well those are the primary ways of finding a topic notable. If nobody has reviewed a peice of media then likely it isnt notable. :D OLI 07:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll gladly fix errors as pointed out - the original message had two issues that where nor really issues. That was my whole position. Hammsilv (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this statement makes me see that you have no WP:CLUE... you really need to read WP:N - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 07:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, @Hammsilv is referring to their draft article at Draft:Mil Palabras con sus Dientes, and the band does have an English Wikipedia article at Bohemia Suburbana. @OlifanofmrTennant: you should use the search function at the top right corner of every Wikipedia page to search for things like this, in case of user error. The tool will try to find relevant articles for you. You should also review new/draft articles not just at face value but with your own research as well. Fork99 (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have read notability and it doenst state the particular way but in most articles for media they have critical reception and developlement information. I can find articles where their removal was due to lack of devolpement info. I've had articles removed for this reason. :D OLI 07:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Going Rogue (The Flash) was removed for not meeting WP:GNG. What's Past Is Prologue (The Flash) wasn't the difference between the two is Going Rouge didnt have development information :D OLI 07:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Rich, my apologies if my reply was not clear or I placed it in the wrong thread. I wrote the article and I was stating I will fix the errors. Oli's original message in my inbox made no mention of the rest of the issues that were exposed here. They were pointing out the band had no page which they do have 3 and that they were not notorious which they are. I will correct the rest of the errors as you point them out.

Thank you. Hammsilv (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have taken this discussion to WP:ANI. No further comments should be made to this section. Fork99 (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm considering taking this to WP:ANI, you clearly need to work on your experience on editing Wikipedia in order to better understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, you should use the search button in the top right corner of every Wikipedia page, as the search function tries to fix up user errors and possible other relevant articles that the user might be looking for. Fork99 (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I know I reviewed a bunch of other submissions that night and I was pretty tired. I know that isnt an exuse but I can assure you that I will be rereading the guide lines as I feel as I have missed some things. :D OLI 07:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

All editors in this discussion are reminded to please follow talk page guidelines at WP:TALK, and use indenting and outdenting where appropriate. This is to maintain the discussion's readability and logic. Fork99 (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have taken this discussion to WP:ANI. No further comments should be made at this discussion. Fork99 (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

There are a couple of more drafts you reviewed that have questionable decline rationales IMO:

Draft:The Lower Couffo Valley, Côtiere Lagoon, Chenal Aho, Lake Ahémé Ramsar Site- you provide no valid decline rationale (not even a templated one on failures of N or V), only stating rework the lead.

Draft:128th Field Artillery Regiment (United States)- again, you note Cites same thing twice. It additoanly relies hevaly on one source per paragraph. Citing the same thing twice is an extremely minor issue and not valid decline rationale, and one inline source per paragraph is a completely acceptable unless the article has significant actual V issues that would mandate inline citations.

Draft:Olu Akanmu- does not even have any valid decline rationale, and just states that There are six citations under Exit from Opay Nigeria. You claimed that the reactions were mixed. Expand on that, write out what the articles claim. While a correct point, it fails to provide an actual decline reason.

Would appreciate if you can comment on these. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@VickKiang: please continue all further discussion at WP:ANI. Fork99 (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fork99 (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm pleased to tell you that this has been closed. The closing rationale is neither for nor against your actions, which is a good outcome.

Let us move to your future (I cannot determine it, I am not an admin, just another editor like you). I see that you have made errors. I believe in people who have made them so long as they do not continue to make the same ones.

Assuming you feel you need to rehabilitate yourself, might I suggest that you look at (eg) my own AFC log with archives. I am by no means right every time, but I've been reviewing for a while. On balance it's likely that I have the hang of it, and my reviews might be a useful example for you.

I wish you well. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: thank you for your kindly worded advice to Oli. Much appreciated, Fork99 (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Your user talk page

Unrelated to the discussion, I’d like to make a suggestion for your user talk page. I suggest changing the “Archives” template to “User talk header”, this should make the page look nicer. You can see what the template looks like at Template:User talk header. Fork99 (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You're right, it does look nicer. On a unrelated note, I'm assuming that at the end of the disscussion I'm losing my probatonary access. How long do I have to wait before reapplying? I will be rereading all of the guidelines either way, :ᗡ OLI (she/her) 08:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know unfortunately, I don't review these requests. Fork99 (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

And yes while I'm sorry this all happened, I hope you take this as a learning opportunity! Fork99 (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Do not make that assumption. I have not reviewed your work, so, sight unseen, unless you have erred egregiously, a simple acknowledgement and firm course correction is likely to be all that is required.

We all make mistakes. We are all able to learn and correct our path. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

If there is any help you need please ask me. I have looked at a couple of your declines and given them a further chance. One is accepted, the other returned to Draft, so far unsubmitted.

With regard to Orders of Magnitude () articles I am unconvinced either way. You may seek consensus at an appropriate noticeboard, or treat their existence as a fait accompli. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Re evaluations

Mary

Excuse me, why in the world was it declined? 84.222.36.186 (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Accepted Passes WP:NSONG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

L'uomo volante

Not notable? Really? The song won Sanremo! Every Sanremo winning song has a page, why should this be an ecception? 84.222.36.186 (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Accepted Passes WP:NSONG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Large cinema screens in the UK

I disagree with your decline, and have reverted it pending study with a view to acceptance 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have accepted it, and added a banner and a tag. I am certain it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Personal apology from editor to editor

I do apologise for taking the discussion farther than what was probably necessary.

I also apologise for any hurt feelings or stress caused by my actions. I have assumed good faith from the beginning in your contributions at all times as you do display willingness to learn and grow. I however apologise if this hasn't come across as the case to you.

I hope that this is okay with you. Let's all work together to make Wikipedia a bigger and better place :) Fork99 (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

As stated at this discussion at the AfC WikiProject, I will voluntarily abstain from all further input from myself about you. I wish you the very best, Fork99 (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I know that its been a while but I have a response, |here OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions?

Your submission at Articles for creation: Orders of magnitude (torque) has been accepted

Orders of magnitude (torque), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

:ᗡ OLI (she/her) 18:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I accepted an article I unfairly declined. After that I'm assuming that I will lose my access to the helper script so I wanted to write this wrong :ᗡ OLI (she/her) 18:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Good for you.

Make no assumptions about losing the role of reviewer. All you have to do is to put right anything you did wrong.

Shit, as they say, happens. Our job is to prevent it from happening in someone else's lap! 🤡 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

What I have been doing

I have been looking at your earliest reviews in order that I can make corrections where necessary. Again I am in no position of authority. I am not, for example, an admin. I have re-reviewed your earliest 45 or so, all those dated 25 August

If you look at my AFC log - User:Timtrent/AfC log - and compare it with yours (if it is turned on) or with https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/ (enter your username in the box) you will see how our thinking differs.

I'm glad to see that you have been able to resist becoming cross in your replies at WT:AFC. Maintaining quiet humility is the key to success. Lose composure once and it all goes to hell in a handbasket.

In case you feel it is odd that you reviews are being examined, this happens often enough to be unremarkable. It's also good work to be doing, because it lets you see how others work. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For some positivity. Thank you for your efforts; reviewing is not an easy thing, so I appreciate seeing your growth.

Curbon7 (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Stephen Ogweno moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Stephen Ogweno. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and Nothing in this draft says that the subject is other than a WP:ROTM health professional. I have moved it back to Draft in order to give the creator and interested parties the chance to work on it in peace and quiet, rather than be subjected to the rigours of WP:AFD. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Stick with it

I've watched some of what's been going on with you over the weekend and wanted to reach out with some encouragement. I chalked up your QF of my GA nom as the inexperience of a newer editor, and when I saw what happened with the AN/I discussion as well as the AfC followup, I do believe that you really have a desire to participate and contribute here in a meaningful way, and that most of the mistakes that have been made are simply due to inexperience - primarily inexperience and knowledge of the Wikipedia culture. Believe me, all that will come if you stick with it. We all have to start somewhere, and it does take a while to really understand the culture and policies we have (and our way of doing things). It's one thing to just make edits to an article and deal with talk page discussion, but it is a whole different level to learn the culture of participating in other parts of the project such as AfCs, GA noms, and such. I do see your efforts to stick with it as encouraging. I'm sure it has been frustrating for you, seeming that things are imploding; but don't let it get you down. Take some time to digest everything and learn from what others are telling you. One thing that's very difficult to recognize - especially early on - is to recognize "tone". There's a lot of discussion going on that might seem "harsh" when it's actually more "indifferent". Most long-term editors tend to be very "matter-of-fact" with their discussion, simply cutting to the chase without flowery discussion. That can often come across as "being yelled at" when it's not. Most long-term editors understand that we need more long-term editors, and that the only way to do that is to help the new editors learn to contribute to the project. So we hope you'll stick around, learn the process and the culture, and continue to become an asset to the project. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

+1. You have a group of editors here, including myself, who are willing to help you along and WT:AFC is also a helpful place. It is common even for experienced reviewers to post there to get opinions from other reviewers. Not a single one of us knows everything and we all make mistakes. And now that I have seen your User page and see Spanish is your native language, if you are up for it, I might ping you to drafts where the majority of sources are in Spanish to help with the review. S0091 (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of One Last Con

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 One Last Con requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.gamingwap.com/game/suits-season-9-tv-series/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Lightoil (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Request on 09:12:27, 7 September 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Iarirda

• Iarirda (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Locize (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for your feedbback OLI. I've edited the article to read less like an ad. Let me know if you notice any passage of text that needs improvement.

Iarirda (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Its defanitly better. The only issue ies the use of "today" as opposed to a date OLI 22:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

msg from ColombianCyclone

I sumbitted a biography on an actual band with 2 different 3rd party sources (FB and IG with millions of pics, 12000 followers, and tons of videos) and it got kicked back since its supposedly fictional? ColombianCyclone (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Page? OLI 17:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I have some thoughts for you

You declined User:ColombianCyclone/sandbox/Rust, but your comment is unusual. You said "The title should have a disambiguation. No sources, defiantly promotional. Poorly formated". I take issue with "The title should have a disambiguation." because it is the accepting reviews job to disambiguate where necessary. We expect the submitter not to know.

Rust has no references. That is a reasonable decline trigger. Often I spend a little time giving advice, perhaps the external links might be of use. In this case not!

Look at the copyvios report. Do you have access to the tool? If not I imagine it is in your preferences. Things have changed since I enabled it for myself. I have removed the copyvio and asked for a cv-revdel

You may have noticed that 100% of the pictures are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with incorrect licencing. This is not part of AFC, but is something worth pursuing. I can guide you if you wish.\

Just keep improving, please. I have faith in you. Please do not let me down. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I've left the creating editor a comment on the draft. They are not perfect, but I hope you will look at them and take AFC comments on board as a great tool to use. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it is somewhat selfish that I anticipated replies from you after helping you, but not receiving them makes me wonder why I bothered. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I dont really know what you wanted me to reply with but I have accounted for these. For most articles i review I check them for copyvio. I have disambiguated a couple articles that needed it OLIfanofmrtennant 06:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI - Usually just a "Thanks!" will do. Better yet would be "Thanks, I'll take that under advisement." Basically, anything that acknowledges that advice was given, even if you actually dismiss that advice. My 2 cents as a TPL. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG Agree It's the simple things in life that keep us smiling/. As we know, this is meant to be a co-operative, collegial project. Thank you for your thoughts. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Just thought of another suggestion - The history of the talk page (well, all histories) have a "thank" link for each edit. Clicking that works, too. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sharon Carter (Marvel Cinematic Universe character) has been accepted

Sharon Carter (Marvel Cinematic Universe character), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

OLI 05:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This was me overturning a previous decline as it was inaccurate. OLI 05:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Bandera Entertainment moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Bandera Entertainment. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and existing sources are either not WP:IS (interviews) or are about the various shows (and so are not WP:SIGCOV of the company). Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. UtherSRG (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello, OlifanofmrTennant,

I was looking over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffry Life (2nd nomination) and your signature on the nomination was not appropriate and typical for Wikipedia editors. Please review guidelines at Wikipedia:Signatures for guidance on how to sign your posts and what an appropriate signature is. It should contain your full username (so editors know who posted the comment), a link to your talk page and the date and time of your post. Please fix this and sign your signature (with four tildes) in the future. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Would you be able to accept my articles for creation submission

Hi, I saw you moved my article to main page yesterday 'List of roles in the British Army'

Would you be able to do the same for my other article Draft:List of equipment of the RAF Regiment, as I've been waiting for months

Thanks very much RAFRegtRockApe (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll look at it and if it passes then yes but if not then I'll decline it OLIfanofmrtennant 04:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I did it, and it passed. However going into this the page will be an orphan fix that. Additonaly twitter isnt reliable. OLIfanofmrtennant 04:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed orphan

Did I do the categories right on both pages? RAFRegtRockApe (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

No OLIfanofmrtennant 04:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you fix ? RAFRegtRockApe (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I added one OLIfanofmrtennant 14:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Sommer Ray

Hi OlifanofmrTennant. I recently ran across Sommer Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and noticed it was you that moved it to article space [1]. I see a number of editors vouching that you've learned a great deal since that time. Perhaps you could go back and re-review such articles that you approved earlier? --Hipal (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe someone has already done that and re-evaluate my earlier edits. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 22:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Apparently not at Sommer Ray. --Hipal (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Shes gotten lots of media coverage. If you want you I can rewrite it to make it less promotional OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 23:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Our Lady of Guadalupe Church (Omaha, Nebraska)

Can let me know part that are bias because I'm confused, Draft:Our Lady of Guadalupe Church (Omaha, Nebraska). JNOJ1423 (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

None i fixed it OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 00:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The parts I changed OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 00:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

then are you going accept the article or no, but what the problem? JNOJ1423 (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

No its not good enough OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 00:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

what specifically it's not good enough? JNOJ1423 (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Read the decline notability. Needs independent sources OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 00:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't have independent sources, I look for 2 hours, but it very important cultural place south Omaha, but not well known church. JNOJ1423 (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Then its not notable OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 00:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

yea not notable church but important church on area and kind of weird and sad not has wiki article, I'm Deeply disappointed with decision. JNOJ1423 (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

not weird or sad, pretty typical. Its not "important" enough so It doensnt get an article. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 00:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

wow I'm Deeply more disappointed, I'm deeply disagree with view on this, so translate to another review. JNOJ1423 (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You cant its been rejected. You can't immediatly resubmit a draft just because you disagree with a principle law of Wikipedia. Especially if you know that it fails the requirement OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 04:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

My Article

Hello! I've updated my article. Do you think you could check it? If there are any small errors that I need to fix, please tell me. JXWAA (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Carl Weems I really want to get this to the main page. I cut out a lot of the problem parts I think JXWAA (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"he revised model has generated scientific and community use as an alternative view of the effect of adverse childhood experiences." and "His empirical work has also led to a theory for understanding the developmental expression of anxiety disorders across childhood and adolescence through understanding the role of statistical suppressor effects." Might be problem sentences, but I want to know what you think. JXWAA (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Request on 04:45:49, 20 September 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Iarirda

• Iarirda (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Locize (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello OLI, can you help me figure out which section of text reads more like an advertisement? I compared my draft with similar articles and also asked other people. And it doesn't seem clear to me why you say it reads like an ad. I would be happy if you could tell me more specifically.

Iarirda (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

btw. @OLI, here you said, the only issue was the word "today" Iarirda (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes but know I've reviewed more articles and have learned more. If you give me a day I'll personally fix the issue. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 04:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

that would be awesome, thank you Iarirda (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I did it but I wont accept it. Let it pend and have some other editor look at it, or maybe consider that its not encyclopedic enough to be included in wikipedia. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 05:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 Declined comprehensively, editors been asked the formal question about paid editing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iarirda#September_2023 Iarirda (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

About a draft you accepted

Hey OlifanofmrTennant! I wanted to ask you about your edit to List of European Championships medalists in wrestling (freestyle), which I feel has a few problems. I'm not sure if the helper script malfunctioned or something, but you did not remove the AfC templates from the article when accepting it, nor did you leave the WikiProject AfC template on the article's talk page, which is standard procedure when accepting. Also, looking at the content of the article, I'm unsure why you accepted it in the first place. None of the sources in the article support the content of the list, the formatting is really messy, and the list more than likely violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY since the list provides information with no context. I'd love if you could shed some light on what happened here. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a similar situation at Raizúa. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 The script has limitations. One of those is that it requires windows/tabs to be kept open until it has concluded, otherwise the script aborts and tasks are left unfinished.

With regard to the list, I would have considered giving it the benefit of the doubt, it's a borderline pass, perhaps on the wrong side of the border. The two references seem insufficient, and should be added to

The location seems to me to have two awful and other good references. I have tagged it.

Both seem to be the result of potential early tab closure. I was just coming here to mention the same thing for the same articles. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks for the clarification on the helper script! As for the quality of the list article, I am giving it the benefit of the doubt by raising my concerns here rather than sending it to draftspace again or bringing it to AfD; I wanted to hear from OlifanofmrTennant about their thoughts in case I had missed something. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 I fear that the list will moulder with inactivity. AfD might be the spur it needs. Like all borderline articles I suggest a polite pause before a well crafted deletion rationale.

Oli, please do not take this as a slight on your work. Accepting borderline drafts is a good thing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I have substantially trimmed the cuban hamlet, removing material sourced to Facebook. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like to elaborate. I didnt know the thing about closing tabs. I accepted the three wrestling lists and cross referenced the information and thought that it checked out. I didnt look at all of the entries because its a long list. If you feel that the lists should be draftified I would happily do so. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 20:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only source which comes close to verifying any information in the article is the archived Chinese source (which isn't in a <ref> tag, it's linked at the bottom); the other sources don't have any information directly related to the subject. Along with the obvious WP:NLIST issue, as well as the possible WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation, I do think that the list needs some work in draftspace before publishing. I'm neutral on the Raizúa article per Timtrent's comments above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Ill revert it then OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 02:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, OlifanofmrTennant! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Your welcome OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 04:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

This gives us an issue. WP:DRAFTIFY is pretty much silent about draftification of a draft we have accepted ourselves, but it is not a usual approach.

The question I have for you and TechnoSquirrel69 is "Do you feel that it will be improved in Draft space?"

• If you do then it is probably the right thing to have done
• If you do not, then you have used Draft space as a six month delay until deletion

My own feeling is that I believe that the creating editor is unlikely to improve it, though I will be happy to be proven incorrect. If I am correct it is unlikely ever to see mainspace again, withering on the G13 vine.

Had you (both?) followed my thoughts, not perfect thoughts, about waiting a decent time and then sending to AfD, the community would have been likely to leap in and come to a conclusion. The community tends to have better opinions than do individuals. Arguably that is not always the case!

So, what now? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I havent considered that. The last human edit tothe page was made in early May. I think its fair to notify and inform the author that the draft isnt improved within two weeks is fair. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 08:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Please stop.

You need to think.

First, by just moving it back to draft and not using the draftily script the people who worked on the document were not notified. Please use the script.

Second, knee jerk decisions are never good. We build consensus when in doubt.

Third, it has NOT been decided to give it two weeks. I suggest you rethink what you have put one various editors' talk pages

Fourth, what deletion process do you expect to use? MfD will almost never delete a draft.

Fifth, if the creating editor (etc) did not produce improvements before in Draft, why do you think they will now?

Sixth, the last human edit was probably submitting it for review. Why would they edit it while awaiting review?

Seventh, By pushing it back to Draft you have not exactly deprived the community of the chance to improve it, but have made it unlikely.

So please THINK, and do not take any further action without thought. Wikipedia is a serious project and requires your seriousness, which does not appear to be your approach. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That last comment is going a bit too far, Timtrent. Please remember that OlifanofmrTennant has had an account for less than six months and has been an AfC reviewer for just one. Implying that she has a lack of competence or commitment to this "serious project" is not getting us anywhere. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 Oli has been discussed already at WP:ANI, and already at WT:AFC. While you have a right to your opinion, I am trying to help her to avoid a further visit there. Far better it be expressed here than at a drama board again. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I understand your concern that the draft's creator is unlikely to pick it back up after this process, but I'd like to remind you that AfC reviewers should not simply accept a draft solely to rescue it from G13 deletion. In fact, speedy deletion would probably be a kinder fate for it, as the alternative would be AfD, which cannot be as easily overturned as at WP:REFUND. The WP:AFCPURPOSE project guideline explicitly lays out the decisions that should be taken during a review in terms of possible AfD outcomes. While AfD can sometimes trigger improvement to a problematic article, I found it much more likely that consensus would veer towards deletion, given the fact that the list article violates at least two core policies and the amount of effort it would take to fix that in seven days. I don't feel that this is a "borderline pass, perhaps on the wrong side of the border", the list doesn't meet many of the lowest standards for acceptance into mainspace, and should have been worked on a bit more before review. I'll also note that I would normally not DRAFTIFY articles that have been accepted by another AfC reviewer, but figured an exception could be made here since the draft creator was not notified and the original AfC tags were still present. As I said earlier, I decided to exercise addition caution by bringing the proposal to DRAFTIFY to OlifanofmrTennant's talk page to consider their views before acting. Let me know what you both think! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 We might get into the territory of debating the number of angels that might dance upon the head of a pin, of not careful. Nonetheless a couple of points which may not have struck you:

• The outcome "Draftify" may be used as part or all of the AfD nomination
• Lists are generally not as well sourced as we might wish, probably though custom and practice
• Knee jerk edits/moves/user talk page messages (not by you) tend to create a negative impression upon editors affected.

I have no objection to your disagreement over the acceptability of the draft 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that DRAFTIFY is an option at AfD, and saying that many lists are poorly sourced is not a reason to create another one with the same problems. Anyways, we're straying a bit from the original reason I started this thread. Since no further action seems to be needed, and the draft creator has been notified of the situation, I think it's time we wrap up this discussion.

OlifanofmrTennant, would you mind if I ended with a suggestion that might help you improve? I think you would benefit from supplementing your reviewing with participation at AfD, where you'd get to discuss practical applications of the notability guideline, are well as core policies like verifiability and what Wikipedia is not. I have myself been served well at AfC by the knowledge I've gained at AfD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I very much endorse this last paragraph.

I hope you understand, Oli, that I wish you well and wish you success. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree to this as I was planning to take a break from AfC reviewing anyways. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 16:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely; just like Timtrent said, I'm giving you feedback out of a desire to help you improve. AfC will be ready whenever you decide to return to it. Good luck, and happy editing! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Butting in here, OlifanofmrTennant, but unless you have a deep level of experience with content creation, I think reviewing drafts for AFC is one of the most demanding tasks one can take on and requires a thorough knowledge of policies, guidelines and also the unwritten rules of what tends to get accepted and what drafts get declined or rejected. A lot of advice passed on by TechnoSquirrel69 and Timtrent in this discussion is knowledge that isn't found on any policy pages but is earned through their experience looking at a lot of drafts and years working on the project. This isn't easily gained but through doing a lot of reviews for AFC and seeing how they turn out. Although criticism is hard to hear, all they have told you (even when they have disagreed) is worth its weight in gold because they are experienced reviewers. If they thought these were insurmountable problems, they wouldn't have taken the time to write long messages to you, they would have just sought to take your reviewing privileges away from you. So, that's actually a good sign. This is a teachable moment.

Give yourself some time to consider all that has been said and think about whether or not you want to improve as a reviewer or whether you'd like to move on to doing other work on the project. I've been active at AFD for about a year and a half and I've noticed that many editors focus on one area of the project for 6-12 months and then move on to work on other areas that seem more appealing. If you really enjoy the process of looking at drafts and helping new editors, then great, listen to the advice given and think how you could do better (like leaving tabs open!). If this is beginning to look more like a chore and work than an enjoyable task to take on, then there are many, many other productive ways to occupy your time on this project. That is both the blessing and curse of Wikipedia is that it will never be finished. Try out some other activities like counter-vandalism, working on a WikiProject, getting involved in deletion discussions (there are lots, RFD, AFD, MFD, CFD) or try drafting some articles on Legends of Tomorrow like you say you want to do. Editor time on the project is the greatest need and is our most precious commodity and if you are not having fun and learning reviewing draft articles, then find another way to contribute that is more enjoyable. It's up to you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I was planning to take a break from reviewing to work on my personal wikipedia plans, and return in November because of the planned backlog drive. I think I'll work at deletion discussions and build up a decent track record. Thanks, OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 03:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Škoda 932

Hello, thanks for your comments regarding the draft of Škoda 932. I have added two additional sources in English: Skoda Laurin & Klement (1992) and Skoda Auto Chronicle 1985-1945 (2019), also as further reading. The referenced article in 'The Automobile' magazine Vol. 41, no. 4. pp. 34–40 is also in English and is wholly devoted to this 932 type. Hopefully there are enough verifiable sources quoted. Many thanks for your help and hoping it can now be approved? Mandarinrobotic (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, OlifanofmrTennant,

You just placed a deletion template into a deletion template (code was {{db-reason|1={{Db-move|Joel Schumacher's unmade projects|refer to the comments placed on that page.}}|help=off}}) which caused this template to be transcluded on to other pages and mark them for deletion when they shouldn't have been deleted. Please do not paste a template into a field on Twinkle when you are tagging pages for deletion. Just use ordinary words or use a page link. It's never a good idea to place a template inside a template. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:AZK (disambiguation): Rejection is gross error and not required

Accepting every submission is enough. This is due to all the consensus. If I remove something without relations and keep multiple with relations, will disambiguation drafts be accepted? 176.33.244.251 (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)