User talk:Onel5969

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

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:

Unknown page

I did not create the page Pär Sundberg, which you proposed for deletion. You did send me a message about it, though. This page has never been known by me. Did something go wrong? Joostgriffioen (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Joostgriffioen[reply]

Happy New Year, Onel5969!

Happy New Year!

Onel5969,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Right back at you, Davey2010, keep up the good work. And may your 2021 be happy, healthy, and prosperous. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Onel5969, Many thanks and you keep up the fantastic work up too!, Many thanks, Lets hope 2021 will be a much better year for us all!, Take care and stay safe mate, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 00:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

about GEO

We can expand this article by referring to the German wiki.--Htmlzycq (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Htmlzycq, hi and Happy New Year. Not sure what you're talking about... please provide a link. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Gene Expression Omnibus, in the wikidata d:Q17321881.--Htmlzycq (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Htmlzycq, thanks. I agree it can be expanded, although there isn't much more in the German article. But until it is, I think the redirect is appropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Kimberly Ritchie

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Kimberly Ritchie, which you proposed for deletion. Hi there! I'm a marine biologist and even though the page wasn't descriptive enough, Kimberly Ritchie's name is associated with coral microbiomes and I think an article on her would be beneficial to readers. If the author can expand on what makes her research significant, having this wiki page will be a useful link to the pages on coral holobionts and microbiomes. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Mochamedusae (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tweiulfse

Regarding you revert in this edit.

That page was created by a new user who moved the page UP10TION discography to Tweiulfse because they were trying to move UP10TIon discography to UP10TION discography. I know that the page history shows that it was created by an experienced editor but it is clearly a test page created by a new user. Apologies if my explanation didn't make any sense. EN-Jungwon 15:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon, hi. When you put a CSD tag on a redirect, it has to have a clear reason why. And it needs to fall under one of the three categories at WP:RCSD, which this clearly didn't. And as a redirect, doesn't qualify for a prod. At best, it should go through the RfD process. The redirect was created by Ss112, who I can not point to a single bad redirect they've created. That being said, there does not appear to be a mention of Tweiulfse on the target page. I've pinged SS112 to see if there should be a mention at the discography. If not, then it should probably go through RfD.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diriliş: Ertuğrul (season 5)

Hi, I noticed you added a copyvio-revdel tag to my article, does that mean that my article can get deleted? Limorina (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Limorina, hi. WP takes copyright violations very seriously. So be careful in the future, as if you continue to do this, you could get blocked from editing. But in this instance, no, your article will not be deleted. I've removed the part which was a copyright violation, and asked an admin to do what is known as a "revdel", where they remove the offending edits from history so no one can see them. So please be careful. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Al-Saadoun

- Hi , please wait don't delete Omar Al-Saadoun, he was famous person in Iraq and Icon for Iraqi protesters in Nassiriyah ,,,Hamaredha (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PE With Joe Article

Hi. I saw you just converted the PE With Joe article to a redirect due to lack of notability. I disagree with this. While I agree the article didn't have sufficent coverage currently, the topic certainly has reliable, third party sources. Reputable sources such as the Independent, The Evening Standard, the BBC, the Telegraph, the Financial Times and Sky Sports have covered the topic. Therefore, I think the article should be reverted back to an article and tweaked to include these reliable sources. Have a nice day :)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squid45 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Institute for Nature Research

Have you looked at how many references there are to Norwegian Institute for Nature Research ? Why misled the public with link to article that has nothing to do with this subject ? There are many similar articles: Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Norwegian Institute for Air Research Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research Norwegian Institute for Crop Research Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies Norwegian Institute for Social Research Norwegian Institute for Strategic Studies Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research Norwegian Institute for Water Research to name just a few ... Please provide more arguments for your action. Thanks ! User:Abune (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC) P.S. Close to 4000 (3783) publications !!! many has been cited in Wikipedia if you look at links !!! according to https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Norwegian_Institute_for_Nature_Research "The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) is Norway’s leading institution for applied ecological research, with expertise on the genetic, population, species, ecosystem and landscape level, in terrestrial, freshwater and coastal marine environments. NINA addresses a wide variety of interdisciplinary issues involving both ecologists and social scientists, and plays an important role in European and other international research cooperation." according to https://www.fondationsegre.org/norwegian-institute-for-nature-research/ User:Abune (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abune, the issue was sourcing and no indication of notability. There were zero reliable references from independent sources.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see... What about these two : https://www.fondationsegre.org/norwegian-institute-for-nature-research/

https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Norwegian_Institute_for_Nature_Research ? will you consider that sufficient ? User:Abune (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abune, the guidelines are at WP:GNG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. In a nutshell, you need several in-depth references from independent sources to show notability. In addition, they should be from outside the local geographic area. The two sources you have above, are not in-depth, one is a simple listing, and the other one is little more than a blurb. They show the organization exists, but they do not show it is notable. Those other organizations are of dubious notability as well, and that is considered an "other stuff exists" argument, see WP:OSE. Hope this helps.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see ... Simple Google search produced more than 140 references in various independent sources and majority NOT from Norway. It will take some time for me to work through this list to find most appropriate. I personally have no doubt that this is one of the major organizations in it field (e.g. Pallas's cat‎, Asiatic cheetah ).

Once I update list of references to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH I'm going to restore this article. Will take a day, two or entire week depending on how busy I'm in "real life". Take care ! User:Abune (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abune, if you want, I can move it into draftspace, so you can take your time to work on it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for offering. Either way works for me ! I’m here since 2006 or so ... User:Abune (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Ibero-American Cultural Centre

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Ibero-American Cultural Centre, which you proposed for deletion. There are now more reliable references. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Miguel913 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Gold

I wished to discuss with you about the edits you made to Star Gold. I have reverted them and wish to discuss this minute conflict with you. I have made this article based on the article of its sister-channel: Star Bharat. I have used similar content, and would like to state that it is one of the most prominent channels in India at present.

I have also made sufficient edits to make sure that it isn't promotional. So please view the article and kindly reply.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review!

Once again, Thanks a lot Sir for your utmost generosity. These flowers are a small return to give you for my gratitude. Thanks a million for giving your review on the article Kaatelal & Sons.--Aleyamma38 (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Barclay

Heyup

I'm trying to work out what Sofia Barclay would have to do to become notable. From my view, she's had several major roles (including as Selina in the BBC drama Defending the Guilty, who is a pivotal role) and has a major role in the upcoming Text for You. That would pass NACTOR, surely? The role of Adela Zal in NYPD Blue would add to that.

Stui (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stui, being in 3 episodes of a television series is not a truly significant role. And a minor role in a TV film isn't really that significant either. If she has one of the leads in the upcoming film, which it doesn't look like she does, a case MIGHT be made for passing WP:NACTOR, but it would be borderline at best. And only after that upcoming film is released. I do agree with you that the redirect made no sense, since she's not mentioned in the target article. Is she the granddaughter of those two? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is the granddaughter of David Barclay, although I'm really not sure who her parents are. I'm not sure why the redirect was there, either, but it looks like the person who created the page did so as a sort of "these people are linked so I'm making the page in case they're notable at some point" hedge.

The TV show is 6 eps long (admittedly half as long as Fawlty Towers) and I believe it has been recommissioned (although Covid is making it hard to do).

Ultimately, I think she's getting somewhere in the acting world, and the presence of the original page for three years clearly hasn't done any harm. It seemed prudent to fill it out with actual information rather than having an irrelevant redirect.

Stui (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Chutima

Hi, just a head's up. You PROD'd this one but the creator removed it without comment or adding a source. Spiderone 08:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting your redirects

Onel, I don't know if you're cursed or something, but I keep seeing your name in the page histories of redirects changed into articles. This time I've seen:

Have a look at them, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oiyarbepsy, hi. No, not cursed, just someone who works a lot at the back of the NPP queue. If I redirect an article, and it gets reverted, I usually let another reviewer have a crack at it, rather than get into a debate with the editor. In my opinion all 5 should be returned to redirect status, none of the radio stations pass WP:BCAST, Hanks doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, and without his father, he is completely unnotable (you can tell by the fact that most of the articles contain something along the lines, "Tom Hanks son..."; and the comic, with 3 PR pieces and 1 unreliable source, doesn't have enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Organized labour project

Thank you for joining the Organized Labour project. I've been a participant in the project since 2006 and am helping with a revival of it. As part this we are introducing a new membership system, which will help with communications among participants. This involves creating a membership file for each participant within your user space (you can see an example of my membership card here: User:Goldsztajn/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Organized Labour). This system is already in operation within a number of wikiprojects (such as Women in Red and Medicine). You will not have to do anything, myself or someone else from the project will create the relevant file within your userspace. However, I am conscious that it is not polite to change an editor's user space without notice. If I don't hear from you in the negative, I will go ahead with making the change after the 18th of January. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Many thanks for supporting the project, in solidarity, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn, thank you for the kind message. I belong to very few projects, and organized labour is not one of them. Good luck, however. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969, you joined WikiProject Organized Labour in June 2015, sorry to see you no longer interested. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn, no worries. As I said, good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Hello, please explain why you reverted my edits for Zee Bangla programmes. As the programming shows was huge in number, i created a separate page. Also the was redirect by giving an improper reason. As per Star Jalsha, i created programming list. Please sir let the details be in separate one. Kboomika33 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kboomika33, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you leave a message on someone's talk page, please provide a link to what you are asking about. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sorry for not providing the link. As you revert my edits of List of programs broadcast by Zee Bangla - this page. I already mentioned the suggestion abouve. So please sir let the details be in separate one. Kboomika33 (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kboomika33, as I said in my edit summary, removing that list leaves a stub article, readers are better served by keeping the information together at this point as per WP:SPLIT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apple ID for Advertisers

Hi,

I'm writing to you because you recently removed a bunch of content from Apple ID for Advertisers citing two Copyvios reports. I humbly disagree with your interpretation of these reports. To spare your page from walls of text, I stated my position on Talk:Apple_ID_for_Advertisers. For now, I returned the content back. Feel free to delete it again, but preferably with more sound explanation this time.Anton.bersh (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Gerard Way discography

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gerard Way discography, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: User was not banned/blocked when this page was created. Thank you. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, this was a weird one. While the master wasn't blocked on 1/4, one of his socks was blocked on 12/20. Initially I filed an SPI on the puppet as the master, without realizing the master account had been created first. Shouldn't the prohibition go back to the earliest block? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that is weird. Do you have the SPI handy? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bcbryar643/Archive. I began it on 1/6, thinking that Ronnieradkerockgod was the Master, since they were already blocked (you can see that in the history). I was roundly chastised somewhere for getting it incorrect...not sure where, can't find it now. And then Dreamy Jazz moved the SPI to Bcbryar643 as the master (also seen in the history). And you can also see that Ronnieradkerockgod was blocked back on 12/16. And yes, very weird. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Barkeep49 - have you had a chance to look into this yet? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I checked back once, didn't see a reply and forgot to come again. Thanks for the ping. So the block on the sock account was for DE editing. I think by the strictest reading of G5 they'd be eligible. But I'm not terribly enthused about using it in an edge case on a topic that appears to be notable (haven't checked referencing but it makes a clear claim to passing NMUSIC). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, thanks for the response. Strict is good. But I understand your viewpoint. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MLL-PLL merger article redirect

Hello. I see you just converted the MLL-PLL merger article to a redirect (to Premier Lacrosse League). I disagree with this. The article had multiple reliable, third party sources. Additionally, the topic meets all other notability guidelines and represents a pivotal event in the history of professional lacrosse, parallel to other major sports mergers. Therefore, I think the article should be reverted back to its independent form. ThatWikiAl (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)ThatWikiAl[reply]

ThatWikiAl, it's fine to disagree with, but it's the merger of two minor sporting leagues, it is best served by handling it in a section of the surviving league, and linking to that section from the now defunct league. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, this is the merger of two leagues both playing at the highest level of professional lacrosse, the official summer sport of Canada and referred to as the fastest growing sport in the United States. This event is best served through a new page that will be further developed as more long-term effects of the merger unfold. This is not dissimilar from the ABA–NBA merger, AFL–NFL merger, NHL–WHA merger, or PSL–PVL merger, all of which are unique pages. Redirecting does a disservice to the sport and the vast implications this merger has on the landscape of professional lacrosse and emerging team sports in North America. ThatWikiAl (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)ThatWikiAl[reply]

Actually, it's quite dissimilar to at least 3 of those mergers, if I looked into it more, I bet that the 4th, PSL–PVL merger would also not warrant its own article, but merely mentions at the two current articles. At the time of the first 3 mergers, both leagues were receiving significant national press, something woefully missing regarding professional lacrosse.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, at the time of the AFL-NFL merger, the AFL was in just the 2nd year of their first big television contract with NBC. The PLL just so happens to also be in their second year of a major television contract with NBC. Yes those other mergers received press at the time, but no one then truly imagined just how much those leagues would take off and how large they would become. We look back at those mergers now as a turning point for those sports. Just the same as what this MLL-PLL merger represents. Professional football salaries were lower then, and many players were just finally becoming full-time athletes. Professional lacrosse players are at that junction today. As for specific PLL press, this merger was clearly covered by NBC, AP News, Sportico, Sports Illustrated, and the Washington Post among other news outlets. Again, it seems that this article meets all Wikipedia requirements. If I need to add more sources to the page in your opinion, I would be happy to. ThatWikiAl (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)ThatWikiAl[reply]

GNG

Hello. In case you did not see it, I left a note for you here. I think that your assertion that the article does not meet GNG is very much incorrect. It has multiple articles, devoted to the subject, by RSs such as the FT, the NYT, the NY Post, and the NY Daily News. Its a premier example of an article satisfying GNG. I would urge you, if you still maintain that in your view it does not (which I admit surprises me greatly), that you take it to AfD. But I expect you will if you do so see that editors in general do not sure your view as to what satisfies GNG. Stay safe. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9D0F:6A81:4224:6C2A (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Sorry that I just made you do a lot of clicking with those redirect reviews lol. Have this kitten as a solace :)

Curbon7 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curbon7, no worries. Glad to see you had the issues with your compromised account fixed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Hey, I just wanted to ask. Why did you move Draft:Pande Eftimov to draftspace? Even when you moved it, there were a number of reliable Bulgarian and Macedonian news references in the article. Silver seren^C 03:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren, when it was moved to draft, virtually the entire article, absent the lead sentence, was uncited. I felt it was better to move it to draft where it could be worked on, rather than leave it and delete 98% as uncited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's better now? I see that Jingiby has submitted the Draft to AfC, but I really don't think that's necessary. Silver seren^C 18:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969! May you really take a look to the article now. Thanks in advance. Jingiby (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby, did. Nice job. In mainspace now. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified erasures

Recently, I noticed that you have completely deleted the geography section of some articles on the rivers of Quebec (eg: Rivière du Monument, Petite rivière du Monument ...). Let's put in perspective that a lot of research and writing work has been done to inform the public well about the description of the rivers. The writing of these sections is based on generally accepted methods. These sections of articles are well sourced by the Atlas of Canada (Toporama) which is published by the federal government; this involves using the geographic instrumentation available on the site. The information published is accurate and properly informs the public. Anyone can access the Atlas of Canada (Toporama) through the Internet and check by using the geographic tools. For the public, it is not necessary to have a doctorate in geography. With regret these erasures impoverish the encyclopedia.--Veillg1 (Veillg1) 10:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veillg1, will respond to your disruptive behavior on your talk page, where there is an ongoing discussion, which you continue to ignore. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave alone the article The Absurdity of Human Existence

The album The Absurdity of Human Existence is from an established artist (Danz CM) and soon to be released. Please leave it alone and respect my work. Thanks.Deepblue1 (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepblue1, please understand WP's notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should have told me earlier

You should've told me before moving my article to a draft page. Now there's no use telling me when you've already done it. It seems you didn't check the external links as a source for references. You could have left a template box indicating that article needs more references instead of outright moving it to a draft. Never mind though, I'm too tired for editing it all over again. I feel like I've wasted my valuable time. Since you've moved it to a draft, now the onus is on you to expand it. Good luck and have a nice day/night! — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 23:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Dabral, you were notified, back on 12/19 by John B123, who did exactly what you suggested and left the ref improve template. Which you chose to ignore. There's no onus on me, I could care less about the subject, if you want to work on it, then that's you're prerogative. If you want to contest the draftification, I'll move it back to mainspace, and remove all the uncited material, which will virtually empty the article. Let me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laos

I'm working on citing the stubs and expanding the articles regarding the politburo and the Central Committee. Please stop until you see my work is finished! :) --Ruling party (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going skiing :) BUT I will reference those lists, expand the Politburo and the Central Committee. I will also try—somehow—how to reference properly.... Could you teach me that last one? :) I've added references to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th politburos --Ruling party (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Semaphore signal (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 Semaphore signal (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) 16:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re. Yu Wensheng prod

Hey, hope you're having a good day! I'm on PROD patrol and noticed your prodding of Yu Wensheng, an article that looks borderline for notability at a glance. I'm very careful about AfDs and PRODs about non-Anglophone subjects where the nominator/proposer doesn't speak the relevant language, because of the consequences for WP:BEFORE, but I don't want to remove the PROD without assuming and possibly cast unintentional aspersions. Can you read Chinese or understand spoken Mando/Canto (both seem potentially relevant to a mainland subject involved with HK)? If I missed any language userboxes on your page, all apologies! Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet, hi and hoping you're having a good day as well. However, you're question is irrelevant. Clear case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concern here is that the article's introduction mentions apparent high-profile law cases that may serve to further establish notability, but on which little seems to be written in English. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet, even if correct, participating in a high profile case does not denote notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Kingman Hall issue

Hi Onel5969, can you tell me the specific issue with citation? I'm working on the cite that you restored the redirection back to, and it most likely has the same citation issues in other sections. There's so much to do there that the format of citations was not my #1 problem. The primary issue is that its subsections should have pages of their own, as there are too many of these subsections for it to be navigable. Rybkovich (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rybkovich, hi, there are several issues, which I mentioned in my edit summary. First, there is a dearth of footnotes, as in zero. You need to insert footnotes. Second, there is not enough information in the references to satisfy WP:VERIFY, so please take a look at WP:CIT and WP:CITE on how to use footnotes, how to format them, and what information needs to be included. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good points! Will fix this no problem. I see that you have a lot of edits! Rybkovich (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP 20

Thank you for good wishes! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Success Principles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Success Principles 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/The Success Principles 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.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Schoenberg Institute

I was trying to help my uncle set up a page for the Arnold Schoenberg Institute which used to be at USC, before my grandfather's archives were moved to the Arnold Schönberg Center in Vienna. You deleted it right away. Can you please let me work on it? There are plenty of sources. It is a different entity than the Center in Vienna. --Randols (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randols, if you would like to work on it, I can move it into draftspace. There, you can work on it without worrying about it being deleted or redirected, until you feel it has enough references to pass WP:GNG. If you would like that, let me know and I'll take care of it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please Randols (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randols,

Done. Good luck with it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pusa Road

Hi, and best wishes for 2021. This is to request you to remove the PROD tag. I am working on the article. I have more material, which I will add over the coming days. I am also hoping that other editors will help me with the History. Before starting the page, I looked up some existing articles on roads, and I believe this road is as notable as many of them. I just need a little time. Thanks a lot! Amuk (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the lead and added a couple of references, so do take a look.Amuk (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969. Please take a look now. Thanks! Amuk (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amuk, hi. The issue is to meet WP:GNG you need in-depth coverage about the road itself. Your sourcing is all about places which are on the road. You can also take a look at WP:GEOROAD. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, hi and thanks for directing me to WP:GEOROAD. My sources earlier were the websites of places on the road. Now I have added five references, which are all secondary and in-depth, and I have located more which I will add. This has, incidentally, not only brought it close to establishing WP:GNG, but helped to improve the article as a whole. I will now remove the PROD since the one-week deadline gets over in a few hours. Thanks a lot! Amuk (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Takkoku!!!

Hi, and thank you for your time. I see you've recently erased the entire Takkoku article which I worked on. I felt that was a little drastic, but what did you find wrong with it and is there anyway I can fix this and learn to prevent future mistakes? Thank you. Malcolm L. Mitchell (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm L. Mitchell, hi. It's not erased, simply redirected. The issue was that there wasn't a single in-depth reference from an independent, reliable source. I looked at two of your other articles, and they have the same issue (Kaiō Dante and Giji Harem ). Sources need to be independent, in other words they can't have anything to do with the subject of the article. They also have to be reliable. Commercial sources selling the product do not qualify (e.g. Amazon). And sources which are simply blogs, or pseudo-news sources which accept user content are not reliable either, like Anime News Network. All 3 of these might meet notability requirements, but the sourcing needs to be from reliable sources. Hope this helps. And if you would like to work on them, I could move them to draft for you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 I can most likely fix them in due time. If you would, could you please move them to draft? Thank you.

Done. Good luck. Also, feel free to ping me here if you want me to take a look at them when you feel they're ready. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, pinging you. Hope it looks a little better now with some references.

Speedy deletion declined: Valerii Makovetskyi

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Valerii Makovetskyi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse, thanks for letting me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please Protect The Following Pages From Heavy IP Vandalism

I Don't Knew How To Protect Pages So I Am Asking You

Please Protect This Pages From Heavy IP Vandalism

Please Protect This Pages Heavy Vandalism Is Been Made In This Pages By Some IP Users Dev Adhi (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Adhi, do you have Twinkle? If so, it has the RPP function. Simply go to the page and click RPP and then fill in the reason for your request. If not, go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and follow the instructions there. I am not an admin, and cannot do page protections. Sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New article

@Onel5969, hi, last day i made a Labiodental ejective affricate page ([1]) and i did add 2 sources to it, what else do you want? AleksiB 1945 (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 10 Lives for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 10 Lives 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/10 Lives 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.

FalconK (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting discussion for 1983 Upper Voltan coup d'état attempt

An article that been involved with (1983 Upper Voltan coup d'état attempt) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (1983 Upper Voltan coup d'état). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol School

Hey Onel. Sorry to bug you, your talk page looks pretty busy. I'm interested in doing New Page Patrol School and I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking me on as a student. I've got about 2800 edits. I'm a pending changes reviewer (done about 300 approves, maybe a similar number of reverts) and I feel I have a pretty decent grasp of many of the core policies, including RS and NPOV. Now I'd like to shore up one of my weak areas, which is notability/deletion. NPP looks like a great way to learn about deletion, help out in a backlogged area, and master something complex. I'm currently furloughed due to COVID, so I'm available pretty much all the time on weekdays. I am wiki addicted, I am editing a lot ;) Time zone is USA Pacific. Happy to communicate off wiki, Skype screen share, whatever your training method is. Look forward to speaking further. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae, if you could give me two days to review all the NPPS material and set up my curriculum, I'd be more than happy to help you take the course. While I'm doing that, you might want to start reviewing the information on the Wikipedia:New pages patrol Tutorial page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I'll work on that, and I'll check back in on Thursday. Looking forward to it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae, had some time this morning, so I created the page we'll be using, you can find it here: User:Onel5969/NPPSchool/Novem Linguae. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thank you for taking the time. I spent an hour or two today reading through CSD and some of NPP. I downloaded the flowchart and started modifying it/taking notes. Screenshot. I also installed the recommended userscripts, configured my Twinkle, started a CSD log, and practiced the NPP flowchart on a page. If it's OK, I'll check back in when I'm done thorougly reading the NPP page. For communications like this and for assignment answers, do you want me to reply on your talk page, the custom NPP page you made, or the custom NPP's talk page? Thanks for your help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae, From this point forward, regarding NPP School, we should use the NPP School page I set up, that way we won't have to wade through other comments. Welcome aboard. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Vladař

Just as a heads up, I'm moving this back to mainspace. 18abruce was able to add the team that qualified the athlete. He played six games with Czech Extraliga team. I told the user in the future to make it clear as day for us on this player's and how they pass WP:NHOCKEY to avoid this in the future. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy, hi. Thanks for having him do that. However, whether or not he actually played for the Czech team is not supported in the referencing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, It is now, he put a cite with the statement about him playing for that team. It's also confirmed in the elite prospects source that was in place from the start, he just forgot to correlate that to him playing for that qualifying team. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Northeast Conference Tournament

I noticed that you undid my revision, just to put a redirect on the article 2018 Northeast Conference Men's Soccer Tournament. That was unnecessary and there is no good reason for it, as there are articles with information for tournaments from other years. Having actual information and scores from the tournament are a lot better than just a redirect link, so please don't put a redirect on it. -Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax.amsterdam.fan, it was deleted as part of a recent AfD discussion. As such it is eligible for speedy deletion, but rather than that, restoration of the redirect was done as an ATD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuki Fujimoto

Hi, I improved the Tatsuki Fujimoto page. Could you let me know if it is ready to be moved back to mainspace? Cheers. - Xexerss (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xexerss, Nice job! Moved to mainspace. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asagiro

Hi, me again. Can you also please move Asagiro to a draft page to allow me to work on a better article? Thanks. Malcolm L. Mitchell (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm L. Mitchell, no problem. Done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good news

Hello O. I've just learned that reflinks has been resurrected. It has a couple enhancements like being able to ask it to fix more than 20 refs at a time. You do have to click on the interactive feature to make it work properly. You might already know this but, since this was the second best thing to happen today, I wanted to let you know about it just in case. Cheers!! MarnetteD|Talk 19:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD, no I didn't know. And yes, excellent news. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It runs mostly the same as before and I feel sure you will adapt to the few things that are new. It even marks some dead links like the old days :-) MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re speedy deletion of Bejay Mulenga

Hi Onel5969. Just letting you know that I have contested the speedy deletion tag you recently put on the Bejay Mulenga page as it is Not unambiguously promotional. If you have any advice on improving the article, please do share. Much appreciated. Cornelius Henson (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Henson, that's fine. Seems to be a moot point now. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More "not ready for mainspace"

Could you take a look at some more of his recent creations and send back a few to incubate in draftspace that aren't ready, such as ones that don't say their native range? Abductive (reasoning) 02:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but if it's what I think you're referring to, I'm not seeing outstanding species stubs by that editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He reversed my last attempt to talk to him on his talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 02:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive, hi. Sorry about that. I have reviewed quite a few of their stubs, and the ones which aren't suitable I move to draft. In most cases it looks to be a case of them moving too quickly, and not reviewing their work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrels Field

Why is the article Sorrels Field being nominated for deletion? -Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax.amsterdam.fan, because it's not notable. Just because something exists, doesn't make it notable. Please see WP:GNG for what constitutes notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

onel5969, how is it not notable though? I have seen other articles about college soccer stadiums that are less-known that Sorrels Field, but they aren't deleted. I think this one should stay because it has been used by pro teams and is a current stadium that is in use by a Division 1 team

Draft:2020–21 Amateur National Championship

I have updated the draft with references from the Moroccan official website for amateur football leagues. All league tables and results table have their own source reference below each table. Please review as soon as you can. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegeta228 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vegeta228, hi. I see that you've added what are known as "raw links", which while are valid references, they are sometimes hard to recognize as sources, and are also prone to what is known as link rot. Please see WP:CIT and WP:CITE to learn more about how to place and format references/footnotes, and what information needs to be included to pass WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your Speedy Deletion request.

Please see Talk:America's Frontline Doctors. RobP (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rp2006, it was a WP:MIRROR. See below - I missed your edit summary with the correct attribution, my apologies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel, you've also mistakenly tagged List of number-one hits of 2021 (Germany) with a speedy deletion tag for copyright violation. Whatever website this is—https://cuttysarkpub.si/rfpt7v3/nummer-1-hits-2020-1ba180 —is clearly some kind of garbled nonsense WP:MIRROR collection scraped from other websites, including this choice cut: "School Zone - Big Preschool Workbook - Ages 3-5 and Up, Colors, Shapes, Numbers 1-10, Alphabet, Pre-Writing, Pre-Reading, Phonics, and More School Zone 4.8 out of 5 stars 34,953". I can assure you no editor on Wikipedia found this no-name website and copied a portion of its garbage for use on a list of number-ones for Germany. Users on Wikipedia wrote that introduction and this website crawled the internet for it. Besides, the copyvio template clearly says any editor who did not create the page can contest the speedy deletion tag by removing it. Ss112 21:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112, I agree with your assessment of that "garbled nonsense", however when a site is marked with copyright, and the verbiage appears to predate the Wiki article, I prefer to let others with more experience in CV issues take a look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

America's Frontline Doctors CSD declined

The page cited as the infringement appears to be a weird cache/mirror of Wikipedia's Tea Party Patriots page, from which the article was properly split. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lothlorien

Let's not argue, re whether or not lothlorien has enough notability. It DOES its one of the premier historical houses that is well known throughout the university and the biggest co-operative system in the USA. BUT I see you have a trigger finger for deleting content. Both times you deleted/redirected content, that others have put in A LOT of time into. I'm sure this is not the first time this point has been made to you. A civil way to do this would have been been for you to make your objection to the editor prior to the deletion. You failed to do this twice. So yes, your redirection has been undone. If you still want to the article to be re-directed you can formally bring up your objection to be considered by others. Rybkovich (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rybkovich, please familiarize yourself with GNG guidelines, which you clearly don't understand. Being well known is not the same as being notable. The cooperative is notable, this particular structure is not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Weirsky

I started a draft about Michael Weirsky. Can you please make it a full article that is a good article or featured article, please? I would prefer it to be featured article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_Weirsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LotteryGeek, sorry, it's unlikely that this person will ever get a Wikipedia article, let alone a good or featured article. Please see WP:GNG as to what constitutes notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is in the top 250 list of worldwide lottery winner. There is plenty of news coverage about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 00:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LotteryGeek, please see WP:BIO1E Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Lebedev

We urgently need a Wikipedia article on the famous neuorscientist, Mikhail Lebedev. Can you please finish the article on Mikhail Lebedev this weekend? It needs to be nominated as a good or featured article within 30 days. I Already started. Please see Draft:Mikhail Lebedev (neuorscientist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 01:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Mélançon

Today, you proposed to delete the article "Claude Mélançon", a Canadian naturalist who worked in the popularization of natural sciences. The references indicated initially were sufficient; however, other references have been added. I have worked hard to write this article well. Given the notoriety of this character, the proposal to erase this article is clearly exaggerated. Especially that anyone can refer on the Internet to his work of life. Please delete this unnecessary notice. -- Veillg1 (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Puckerman

Hello, you reverted my edits today on Jake Puckerman and I was wondering if you could give an explanation why? You said that the article had "Zero real world notability," but all of the other main characters on Glee have their own character pages, as well as some recurring characters. If it was a problem with the way it was written, I would have rather you reached out to me rather than deleting the work. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. - Fiscus Brady!! (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiscus Brady!!, WP:OSE is not a very good argument. Just because other crappy articles exist, doesn't mean that this one should. Take a look at WP:NFICTION. For notability purposes, interviews count zero, being primary sources. In the development section, that leaves a single sentence about the character in a promotional announcement. In the reception section, again two small blurbs doesn't do well to denote notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

onel5969, thank you for the feedback on the article. However, I do feel that the character deserves an article so I wish you would have left those criticisms in a notice on the page or moved the work to a draft space. I do understand your arguments, though. - Fiscus Brady!! (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiscus Brady!!, I can definitely move it to draftspace, if you would like. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

onel5969, I think that would be a good idea. That way other editors can contribute and help the article. - Fiscus Brady!! (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiscus Brady!!,

Done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

onel5969, Thank you! - Fiscus Brady!! (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Memories (Kim Woo-seok and Lee Eun-sang song)

Hi, can I ask you something? Why did you turn this page into a redirect link? I'm new to Wikipedia, so can you point what criteria this article didn't fulfill from WP:NSONG? Thank you. Byy2 (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Byy2, a. hasn't charted; b. hasn't won a significant honor; c. has not been covered by other significant groups. Most of the citations are publicity announcements. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question! Byy2 (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Incubator

Hello, I noticed that you recently turned the Wikimedia Incubator page to a redirect. I think that it might be better to turn it back to the article again and let others have the ability to keep contributing to it. I don't entirely agree with the redirect, so can you please let me know what you think and what we should do about that page? Thanks. 54nd60x (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

54nd60x, sorry, but that was a decision as the result of a consensus from a discussion. Look at BDD's edit summary on 1/4/21. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I understand why the page was turned to a redirect. Thanks for letting me know. 54nd60x (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Copyvio

Comparing the "source" to a March 2020 (9 months before the source was written) revision of 2010's charts also shows a match - looks like reverse copyvio to me. Cabayi (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, hi there. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The link above is to a copyvio report for List of number-one hits of 2010 (Germany), which I don't think I've ever touched. Am I missing something? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reported List of number-one hits of 2021 (Germany) as a copyvio. If the March 2020 revision of Wikipedia's article on the 2010 charts also matched cuttysarkpub.si (written Dec 13, 2020) then cuttysarkpub.si can't have been the original source. The cuttysarkpub.si page looks like faked up, mixed language "content" drawing on some Wiki text & goodness-knows-what-else intended to trick search engines into rating the website higher. Cabayi (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, thanks for clarifying that. I review a few pages a day, and the title didn't ring a bell, so when I clicked on your above link, it confused me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To keep you in the loop

Just to let you know, you were listed at a arbitration request which has been since removed as premature by me. It can be viewed at this permalink. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamy Jazz, thanks. A bit bizarre regarding a notability difference of opinion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otzar Ha'aretz

Thank you for your comments, I would like to know how to express that the page is a translation from the Hebrew article on this topic, see here. The topic here is related to the sabbatical year in Israeli which will begin this September 2021 and is relevant to the contemporary life in Israel. I have been asked to explain some of the complexities of the Jewish laws pertaining to letting the agriculture grow wild - untouched - for the sabbatical year, and to review how the farmers can make living during that year. Thank you for your help in making this article better and sharing this topic to the English speaking public. Would it help to add more articles in English? I only found this one which spoke against this movement. Drkup(IMJ) (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Drkup(IMJ). The article is already linked to the Hebrew WP through the languages script on the left side of the page. In the future, if you create a page and it's a translation from a foreign language WP, the correct attribution is to mention that in the edit summary, the process is explained at WP:TFOLWP. Regarding this particular article, if you would like, I'll go make a null edit (where I change nothing), and simply make the attribution for you. Is this article about the company? Or about the concept on which the company is founded? You can make it about the company, and include the concept in the history of why it was founded. Or you can make it about the concept, and include the company as an example of how Israel is meeting current societal needs as in relation to the concept. When I did a search, I did find a decent article about the company, in The Times of Israel, but that's the only one I could find, which is why I prodded it. Articles do not have to be in English. So yes, adding other sources which goes in-depth about the company (if that's the route you choose), or the concept, would be a way to show notability. Different WP projects have different standards for notability and verifiability, and English WP is one of the more stringent. Hope the helps, and don't hesitate to ask me to look at the article again, if you make improvements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have updated the article as per your advise - to confirm, it is a non profit company created to solve a biblical problem during modern times. The company is fledgling as it has not existed straight through but only "pops-up" every seven years during the sabbatical year - which is about to begin again in six months. I hope I have clarified this point in the article. I would appreciate if you help me correctly attribute the Hebrew article as I did not understand what I was meant to do.Drkup(IMJ) (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd protests in Italy

Hi, i saw you deleted the page i created and you made a redirect, why? Borteddd (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Borteddd, this was a procedural move. As I said in the edit summary, WP:SPLIT would apply in this case. What you should do, is revert my edit, and put the correct attribution in the edit summary. Then I would (but it isn't required), make sure that everything in the main article is included in the new list, and delete the information in the main article, leaving just the main article: George Floyd protests in Italy, in that section. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i undid your redirect, i will add the cities that protested with 100 or more people. Borteddd (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Borteddd, very cool. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine of Odessa page

Hi, may I ask what do you mean with "This article does not cite any sources"? First version of the article had a lot of quotes with sources, but they were deleted by another editor. Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Cuisine_of_Odessa&oldid=997197198

Should I restore them again? Please, will you be kind to explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizard85 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard85, not necessarily. The quotes were overdone, but what you need is to cite the information that is currently in the article. For example, there is a section "Odessa specialties", you should find a source which describes those items as a specialty of Odessa, and insert that footnote. Then, you should provide a footnote for each item which either does not have a link to its own Wikipage, or the wikipage does not highlight as an Odessa specialty (e.g. in looking at Bryndza, Odessa is not even mentioned in the article. Similarly, every assertion made in the "Overview" section should have a footnote, as per WP:VERIFY. And the "Typical dishes" section also needs a reference to show that all of those dishes are Odessian. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

Thanks for deleting my Antim: The Final Truth Redirecting. I think that article is notable. What do i have to do to restore that article? Do i have to cite more sources?

Hyderabadi Wikipedian (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Buiu (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 Buiu (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) 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of "One Thousand Pictures"

Hello, I was quite surprised by the redirect of my article. The article meets the notability requirements in more than one way and I worked on this article with another experienced Wikipedia editor. I have other published album articles that follow the same format as this one. This redirect is confusing readers.Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Fullerton, sorry, the album, as presented in the article, meets none of the criteria. There are two blurbs from promotional sites, not in-depth reviews of the album. Let's review, #1 - Nope, both of the current sites are just basic listings. #2 - Nope. #3 - Nope. #4 - Nope. #5 - Nope. #6 - Nope. #7 - Nope. So not sure what you are referring to when you say that this album meets more than ONE of the criteria. In it's current form, it meets none. Please point out which of the multiple criteria it meets as per the current sourcing of the article? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Wikipedia says meets the notability criteria. This album meets more than ONE of the criteria.

"Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart. The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country. The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications). The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography."

Hello, I'm expanding the article with new sources, such as the LA Times, Salt Lake City Desseret, and others. I hope those sources are considered reliable. Also, AllMusic is considered a source for most music articles I see on Wikipedia. Is there a reason that you didn't consider it to be a good source? Also, Guitar Nine, is it considered reliable? Now, if you could help me indirect the redirect, I would be most appreciative. Regards,Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fila (hat) reversion to “Aso Oke Hat”

Hello, I noticed that you reverted my relocation of the article “Fila (hat)” which was previously entitles “Aso Oke Hat”. I have reversed your reversion and ask that you leave the article in it’s, now correct, place.

I relocated this article because Fila is the correct term for this garment and it is never referred to as an “Aso Oke Hat” except on Wikipedia or in a few blog posts referencing this incorrectly titled article.

Fila are made with various fabrics, including aso oke, and to refer to all fila as “aso oke hats” is and incorrect, anacronistic and actually offensive. It is clearly a non-Nigerian, non-Yoruba, outsider looking in type of term which has no relevance in Yoruba, or Nigerian society or culture.

I am a subject matter expert on this subject, being Yoruba and Nigerian.

Ajisekanla (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajisekanla, what you did is called a cut and paste move, which was explained in my edit summary. These are not allowed on WP, due to attribution reasons. You must "move" the page. Most likely the current redirect is preventing you from doing that, so you must request it to be moved at WP:REQUESTED MOVES, if you do so, you should include references to back up your above claims. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Will follow that process. There are no references supporting “aso oke hat” other than this article. Ajisekanla (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Goms cross-country skiing trail

Could you please take another look? I added references to the official Switzerland Tourism website as well as outdooractive.com (Europe's largest outdoor web platform), I guess those should be reliable sources. --MRB (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MRB, hi. There's still quite a bit of uncited material in the article. Any assertion you make should have a citation/footnote. Also, I'm not sure of the notability, it would be nice to see some in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources, but that's a different issue. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in a more civil tone

User @Rosguill: removed my last post because it was uncivil. He was right to do so. You, however, have no right to delete those articles and move them to draft.

Reasons

I'm working my ass off—on my spare—improving WP's coverage of Laos. You are deleting that coverage.
I'm posting online the list of governments of Laos and North Korea. You are deleting them. You would never delete articles about (lets say) Donald Trump's Cabinet. But you are doing it for North Korea and Laos.
I'm working my ass of to expand articles I create. You can see it here, here and here. That inspires me.
You kill my inspiration, you kill my joy and you want to quite WP. Because of instead letting me to my work, you are deleting for no good reason.
User Geo Swan [here] (very well I might add) why these articles shouldn't be deleted, why they should be kept. And you delete them.

Rosguill said I shouldn't say you deserved to be blocked BUT that's what I feel you deserve. This might just be temporary anger—very probably is—but I'm feeling it for a very good reason. You should think how you're edits affect other users who contribute in their spare time to improve WP's coverage. Edits like you're—like you did my deleting my articles from main space—kill my joy. That should really get you to think. --Ruling party (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling party, I'm just going to note that while your efforts to expand our coverage of Laos and North Korea are admirable, Onel5969 is not the only editor that has taken issue with the manner in which you have been publishing such material. While it's ok for articles to be stubs when you first publish them, they need to have citations to multiple independent sources. You should consider either developing these articles more in draftspace before moving to publish, or collecting similar topics together (e.g. at Politburo of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party) before splitting things out into multiple articles. The way that you are currently editing leads to an undue amount of work for our new page reviewers, and directly leads to the conflicts that you are having. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill But the articles on the LPRP had references. EVerything was referenced... --Ruling party (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling party, could you be more specific about which article you are referring to? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruling party. First, I moved 4 of your articles to draft, solely because they were unsourced, and had not been worked on for improvement in over two weeks. One of the policies of WP is WP:VERIFY, and no information which is unverifiable should remain on WP, if you look at WP as an encyclopedia/gazette. I reviewed quite a few of your articles today, most of which I marked "reviewed" (such as 8th Central Committee of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party, 10th Politburo of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party, Kim Yong-bom, Inspection Commission of the Workers' Party of Korea, 8th Central Committee of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party). As far as my logs show, I can't find any of your articles which I nominated for deletion, either through Prod, CSD, or AfD. I could have nominated all 4 of those I moved to draft, since all were uncited, but I felt moving them to draft in order to give you a chance to expand the references was the more polite thing to do. Remember that it is WP policy that any unreferenced material may be deleted at any time, and should not be re-added until appropriate citations are added (as per WP:BURDEN). As per Rosguill, not sure what you're referring to when you bring up "LPRP". I'll let your uncivil comments slide for the moment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and Onel5969: If what you're telling me is true.. then well maybe I'm just a whiny bastard! (it might very well be the case). However these are referenced

And there are more!

I would rather that you wrote me a message saying "Please add sources or I have to delete them" rather than moving those articles to draft. But maybe you're right. Maybe I would complain in that too. If so, I won't do it in the future. --Ruling party (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling party, looking through those examples, none of them are articles that Onel5969 moved to draftspace. While they did restore them to their preexisting redirect revisions, at the time they did so each of those articles was totally unreferenced, making Onel5969's edit the correct move in that juncture. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Draft:2nd Politburo of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party has been rejected three times (two times with references) @Rosguill:

But yes—you are right—I mixed up users.

Therefore I have to admit the following; I was rash. My apologies to you Onel5969. I was both rash, stupid and ignorant. My fault completely. I was angry at the system and I got angry at you instead. Pathetic of me, really.--Ruling party (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling party, thank you for that. One of my biggest issues, as Rosguill knows, is civility. Yet I also understand how frustrated it can be when you see your hard work either deleted or challenged. As Rosguill said earlier, your work in an area that the project needs help in is admirable. Experienced editors simply wish you to spend a bit more time fleshing out the sourcing for those articles. There are a few more articles which you have created which have not yet been reviewed. I would suggest you go back over them and work on the references (in some instances there are zero). It gives me, or any other NPP reviewer, joy to move an article to draftspace. It is always more gratifying to pass it as reviewed (which I have said I have done to several of your articles). But even those I marked reviewed could well stand more sources. Keep in mind that a single source is rarely acceptable in the long run. But on those that I reviewed, that single reference was enough to pass notability. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starveling

Hello User: Onel5969, I do not agree with your reset. I'm new to the enWP. Where can we clarify whether this article will be kept? BR, Asurnipal (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asurnipal, hi, and welcome to English WP. Every WP has different standards and guidelines, and ENWP has some of the most stringent. You can always ask questions on editor's talkpages (as you did here) or at WP:TEAHOUSE. Two key issues are notability (see WP:GNG) and verifiability (see WP:VERIFY). The issue with the article you tried to create is that it is virtually unsourced. You added two references, one is a bad link, and the other is for a specific instance you describe in the article. The issue with the second one is that it doesn't seem to mention the incident with the unpaid phone bill at all. First, you need to establish notability. To do that, you need several articles which go in-depth about the article's subject. Then, you also need sources for every assertion which you make in the article. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Onel5969, in my opinion the defects you have described are not a reason for deletion, maybe a reason for improvement (quality assurance). I will be able and happy to make improvements at any time. In this way I can learn how to do it at the enWP myself. So please restore the item. If you are unable to do so, where can I request this verification? Thanks for your help, BR, Asurnipal (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asurnipal, first, they are definitely grounds for removal. One of the policies of WP is that unsourced material can be removed at any time, and then, as per WP:BURDEN, may not be re-added without appropriate citations from independent, reliable sources. Therefore, I can't restore the article. What could happen is that I could move it into Draftspace where you could work on it. If you would like me to do that for you, let me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Onel5969, I would like to hear a third opinion, is that okay for you? BR, Asurnipal (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Asurnipal I will be happy to offer a third opinion, as the article isn't actually deleted and is saved in the history. I have looked it over and am confused if the article is speaking about an English term starveling or the German term Hungerleider. Most of this seems to be an opinion or original research on the use of the term. This may very well be suitable as a topic with the proper citations and probably should be worked on in the draft space as opposed to the main space where is subject to removal if it does not meet the criteria for inclusion or verifiability. I would recommend that we transfer the page to Draft:Starveling where you can work on it and get feedback with less chance of deletion. Then we can recreate the redirect until such time the article is ready for the main space. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello McMatter, thank you very much for your opinion. The article describes something, namely a term that has roughly the same meaning in several languages. This is also related to the history of the language, how did these languages come about and how did they influence each other. In addition, e.g. the references to places in the Czech Republic that were German-speaking in earlier times or were influenced by German-speaking people. Apparently I haven't worked this out well enough in English that it is understandable at first glance. Even if, in your opinion and that of Onel5969, the article does not fully correspond to what is expected in enWP, it can still be used in many areas, as it is about explanations that do not contain any further Proof required. In my opinion, the first paragraph can easily remain. And so we could work our way through here, as is usual with quality assurance in other WP projects. For me, however, a complete deletion is incomprehensible, and that I am now supposed to work on it as a draft, without knowing what is actually wrong with it. Of course, there is also the language barrier, where I certainly have other language-social backgrounds that can lead to irritations. But I believe that this can also be resolved together. Isn't such an approach better? SG

Asurnipal I will try and put this simply. Of the 2 references included in the article one is unreachable and is basically a dictionary site the other is a stretch on a possible use of the word. Everything else is unsupported by any sourcing, this is always subject to removal. What needs to be done for this to be included in the English Wikipedia is provide more sources that discuss the history of this term and its use. Please take a look at WP:NEO for more information on how Wikipedia look at these topics in particular. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asurnipal - Also, please read the links already provided for you, WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY. Any article on WP must comply with those two policies. That's not an opinion, that's policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood. BR, Asurnipal (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Laudi Khela article

Hii am user Template:Behera Sahab, I noticed that you are redirected the page of Laudi Khela as per AFD, but there is more and reliable sources. Ao Please I request to you please visit this sources , before new redirecting. Thanks Behera Sahab (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Behera Sahab, it has nothing to do with your sourcing. It was redirected as the result of an AfD, and a pretty recent one. I'm not commenting on the quality of your research, this is simply a procedural matter. Since the AfD is so recent, you should take it through DRV. Your rationale for recreating the article seems to meet one of the requirements for that as per WP:DRVPURPOSE. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AMSCOL notability tag

Since you put a notability tag at AMSCOL, you might want to see my comments at Talk:AMSCOL. (I thought it was best to have any discussion there). Adpete (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

moved landmine article to draft space due to lack of sources

Hi Onel5969 I have noticed you have moved my A.P. Mine E.P. Mark VI article to draft space due to a lack of sources. I see why you did this and agree with you the article should have had more sources.All my other mine articles have been checked for at least two sources and those that did not have this had them added in. In future two sources will be the minimum for my articles. So I have implemented your feedback and will do so in future thanks for taking the time to assess my article! Anonymous contributor 1707 (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination of SDSU Sports Deck for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SDSU Sports Deck 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/SDSU Sports Deck 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.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure?

The source says Allium iranicum Wendelbo, and the species is found in Iran. Is is even possible that there is another? Abductive (reasoning) 15:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive, the way I read it, the source is for Allium pyrenaicum Costa & Vayr. And there is a page for Allium pyrenaicum. But no, I'm never positive when it comes to taxonomy, that's why I ask for help for time to time. If you feel I've read the source incorrectly, please feel free to revert. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I didn't copy-and-replace properly. It is fixed now. Abductive (reasoning) 15:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive, no worries. I would fix some of these myself, but I don't want to make a mistake. Have moved it back to mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

A small token of love for the latest review you gave for my biographical article on the television actress Jiya Shankar. Thanks a million for this generous support and wishing you great success in Wikipedia ahead! :) --Aleyamma38 (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential AfD

Hi Onel5969. I have noticed your high level of expertise when it comes to Wikipedia so I come to you with a question. While on Category:Wushu practitioners I found Serge Augier. Nearly all the sources (which serve the purpose of only listing the subject's works) are from the subject himself, the subject is not associated with a notable organization or martial arts style, and the subject's mentions in interviews do not seem that significant. The mention of Stéphane Allix seems to be a trivial attempt at association with someone of greater importance. I was going to write the AfD script on this article but since I am still new here, I am looking for some opinions. What do you think? Yinglong999 (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Books Network - questions about the article

Hi Onel5969,

I am writing to you about the New Book's Network Wikipedia site that you deleted. It was my first article, so I am kindly asking for help, what I should do so it can go back on the page. I am a big supporter of NBN and I know personally the founder. You wrote that there was a questioned notability. Here is why NBN should have its own Wikipedia page: It is connected to OUP, Princeton UP, Amherst College, LitHub as well as the many guests we've had who are very notable (e.g., Jered Diamond, Francis Fukuyama, etc). NBN is the only "crowd-sourced" podcast project. Our hosts (500 of them) are volunteers, just like editors on Wikipedia. It is worth mentioning that Marshall Poe was inspired by Wikipedia when he created NBN. Besides, it is the largest podcast enterprise in the world in terms of the number of episodes it has produced and does produce. There are no other podcasts that have produced > 9500 episodes or any that publish 50 episodes a week. On Wikipedia, there is even a separate section for podcasting companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_podcasting_companies - I believe that NBN should have a spot here. Please share with me your thoughts, I hope we can find a solution. Many thanks.

Best regards, Mabl2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabl2 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About page 1ST

Hello, a page that I created about SixTones' studio album, 1ST, was gone, and it leads to SixTones' page instead. Since you're the one who reviewed the page, I was wondering why does it is gone. Is it gone, or just moved. Either way I'm left without a reason.

Thank you in advance. --Yukinotane (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mats J. Stensrud

Hello Onel5969, apologies for this random message. I've started reviewing drafts at AfC for a few days and came across Draft:Mats J. Stensrud, which cites a lot of academic journals as sources. I have seen you in several AfD discussions, so I wanted to drop by and ask whether this passes WP:NACADEMIC, and can be safely accepted. I'd appreciate your opinion. Thank you. --Ashley yoursmile! 15:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleyyoursmile, Never apologize for asking questions. This is an interesting case. They certainly don't seem to pass WP:GNG, but you're right in looking at WP:NSCHOLAR. They have an H index of 11, which is not high, and their citation count is anemic. Of the 8 criteria at that SN, he doesn't seem to qualify for any of them. That is, except for the possiblity of #5. And that hinges on what is meant by the term in the lead, "head of the Chair of Biostatistics at the Deparment". Being the head of a department doesn't meet the criteria, but if he does hold a named chair, then he does. Unfortunately, I can't discern if it is an actual named chair or not. I'll ping David Eppstein, who is my go-to editor on NSCHOLAR questions, and see what they have to say. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. WP:NACADEMIC, like a few other subject-specific guidelines, seems a bit tricky to me which is why I wanted to ask for a second opinion. I'll leave the draft for another reviewer to review for now. Thanks for taking a look. --Ashley yoursmile! 15:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I left my evaluation as an AFC comment on the draft. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, Thanks. Do you have any thoughts on his position, would that qualify as a "named chair"? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's an assistant professor. So no. The "named chair" part of WP:PROF only applies to chairs that mean another step beyond full professor. When a chair means something else (I think here, that he's an independent head of a research group, something that is automatically true of most assistant professors in the US) then it doesn't count for that criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, thanks again. That was what was causing me indecision. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, thank you very much for the comments. Ashley yoursmile! 20:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School

Hello, I want to participate as an apprentice. Are you available tutor? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. I will look for another tutor. Best regards. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.WagnerC, sorry I haven't responded, things got a little backed up for me in real life. I am going through my first NPP school right now. Would you mind holding off for a few weeks until I finish that one? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.. Sorry. No problem then. I can wait. Best regards and thank you for reply. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.WagnerC, hi. Hopefully, you're still interested. I feel I have enough of a grasp to take on a second student. So if you still want to proceed, I've created your NPP School page, you can find it here: User:Onel5969/NPPSchool/A.WagnerC. From this point forward, anything to do with your NPP School, we should talk about on that page, or its talk page. That way we won't have to wade through a bunch of other comments. Welcome aboard. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hii

Hi today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniz_Unay My article has been approved I want to say the following about the article I have been working on this article for more than 4 months I took into account all rejections and also got information and support from editors in wikipedia support chat You can see developments on this subject on the Talk Page In addition, the other day, this article was rejected in the form of a copy, and this error was corrected, now the article has been unfairly deleted. There is no charge for this article I don't know how to defend myself on this issue I also added the best resources about Deniz UNAY, if you look at google searches, dozens of valuable resources can be found. Please don't be so cruel and unfair I hope you can help greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emremer (talk • contribs) 20:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Verses of Bernard of Clairvaux

Hi Onel, just curious, because you added a refimprove tag to this page today. What is it that you think needs better referencing? --Melchior2006 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melchior2006, none. That was a misclick on my part. Thanks for asking, I've removed it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Glad I asked. Melchior2006 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Souto

Hi, I'm sure you'll know the answer to this... I recently received a notification that you had reviewed this page. However, the history shows that I did not create it but that I moved a previous draft from a sandbox leaving a re-direct. The 'owner' of the sandbox has then come along and removed the re-direct (see history) and started a different new draft for which I get the credit (or the blame) and often receive messages in respect of items I know nothing about... And the creator does not. This happens quite frequently even though I am reluctant now to move drafts from sandboxes. Is there a simple solution to this? I have seen reviewers moving items from sandboxes without leaving a re-direct? Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eagleash, yeah, it has to do with the page mover right, take a look at Wikipedia:Page mover. With that, you can move pages without leaving a redirect. This also comes in very handy when doing round robin switches. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks that's much appreciated! I'll look into 'page mover'. Eagleash (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Walter Baily's Motor

Hello,

I have just received a message for speedy deletion of Walter Baily's Motor, although the message doesn't appears on the article-page. There are several version of Polyphase Electric Currents and Alternate-current Motors on Internet Archive and one is in Public Domain (at least that how the book is described). What the case when there are many different versions, free and non-free to use, of same source material?

Thank you, Marino108LFS (talk 23:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marino108LFS, yeah, I wasn't sure about the copyright status, since you simply cut and paste from the source, but an admin checked it, and it apparently is ok. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need help for a merge

Hi, I saw that you reverted my edits. I'm sorry if I made some mistake but I really don't know the procedure to merge the 2006 Russian march article with Russian march. Could you please help me? Thank you very much.--Mhorg (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this article, but I don't understand how it works: [2].--Mhorg (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhorg, Hi. The issue is that the article appears to only be about the 2006 event. So moving it to a generic term doesn't seem to make sense. Do you have sourcing to expand the article to cover multiple years? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the 2017 and 2020 russian marches, do you think it's ok now to make the merge? Next days I will add infos of other russian marches, as soon as possible.--Mhorg (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhorg, yes, but I'm not exactly sure of the exact correct process. Most likely a histmerge should be done. I'm going to ping some admins to see what they think. Pinging Primefac, Anthony Appleyard - the articles in question are 2006 Russian march (the current incarnation of the article, which has history), and Russian march, which is currently a redirect to the 2006 page, but also has history, since that page was merged. Thanks for any input. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhorg and Onel5969: 2006 Russian march and Russian march are WP:Parallel histories and cannot be history-merged with each other. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Anthony Appleyard:, so, couldn't we just delete the [Russian march] redirect and then move the article from 2006 Russian march to "Russian march"?--Mhorg (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Michelle M. Pillow

I have contested the proposed speedy deletion tag from Michelle M. Pillow because she is a notable author and I believe the page would be beneficial to readers. She was recognized by the Romance Writers of America (RWA) for a prolific career writing over one hundred books. She's multi-published by various traditional publishing houses, with some works out of print, and independently published. I've referenced her notability via sources such as the New York Times, USA Today, and Authors Guild. She's also listed on IMDB. I also listed all of her works and referenced the Internet Speculative Database. What part of the article is it that you have an issue with or feel is an advertisement?

Thank you,

User:Jmgamble1981 (User talk:Jmgamble1981) 11:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jmgamble1981, Hi. First, it's written in a non-neutral tone. Phrases like "award-winning" are only inserted in articles in attempts to puff up the importance of the subject. Inclusion of a list of non-notable awards is also an indication of promotionalism. When you combine that with the lists of works, it reads like a promo brochure. If you re-write it in a neutral tone, then the lists are simple lists of works. The strongest claim to notability is her bestselling status, but that would need citations from independent, reliable sources to verify. Hope this helps. Would you like me to move it into draft so you can work on it? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes, please move the article to draft rather than deleting it. I will revise it. Thank you! User:Jmgamble1981 (User talk:Jmgamble1981) 12:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jmgamble1981, Done. Good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ČSD Class T 211.0 moved to draftspace

Hello Onel5969. I had partially translated the Czech version of this page in the same format, generally referring to 'Malý atlas lokomotiv 2007'. The German page is also the same. I've now included a second source and used it to reference several facts in the English article. Can you make any other suggestions? Wkmdjay (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wkmdjay, hi. Yeah, articles with a single source, unless they meet an SN automatic notability criteria (e.g. like a populated place, or a state senator), are ripe for deletion. When you add that second source, it makes it easier to remain in mainspace, but that article still needs more sourcing. For example, in the lead you mention 627 were made, but that isn't in either of the 2 sources. You need to provide a source for that, along with any other currently uncited assertions in the article. If you got that from the German article, and it was unsourced there, it should be removed from our article, unless a source can be found. Other WP's don't necessarily have the same standards of sourcing as English WP. Hope this helps, and don't hesitate to ask me to take another look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Meinhold

I removed your proposal template to delete the article over concerns on notability. Check my edit summary for the reason. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Ekaterina Dranets

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Ekaterina Dranets, which you proposed for deletion. Her WTA appearance came in a WTA tier IV event, which is a WTA event that meets the WP:NTENNIS requirements. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Iffy★Chat -- 10:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of/for Community Studies

Hi there.

Can I ask why you reverted the flip between titles of the two pages, "Institute of Community Studies" and "Institute for Community Studies"? Does it not make sense for the title to reflect the current name of the Institute, not its pre-2005 name?

Thanks.

Streathamhill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streathamhill (talk • contribs) 13:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Streathamhill, as I said in the edit summary, that's a cut and paste move, which is not allowed in WP, since it hides the attribution history. See WP:CUTANDPASTE. If you don't have the page mover function, you can make the request at WP:REQUESTED MOVES. Even if you do have the page mover ability, you might not be able to, since the redirect is blocking the move. In that instance, you'd have to request the redirect be deleted to make way for the move through WP:G6 first, then move the page. The first thing you should do, however, is provide a citation showing that the name has indeed been changed. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that does help. The citation is easy enough from their website: https://icstudies.org.uk/about-us/introducing-institute-community-studies

Would a better approach be to revert the "Institute of Community Studies" entry to its 15 November 2017 version and to replace the "Institute for Community Studies" entry with the new material? That way there would be one entry for the pre-2005 Institute and one entry for the post-2019 Institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streathamhill (talk • contribs) 14:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Streathamhill, I don't think so, there's no need for two stubs, especially if the later organization is simply a reincarnation of the earlier one. In reading the ref you provided above, it's clear the organizations are related, so they should stay the same. I think you should add a paragraph in the article which, in your own words, summarizes the contents of the above ref, and insert that reference as a footnote (see WP:CIT on how to format citations). If you do that, I can do a round-robin switch for you, which will result in the same thing you attempted, but keep the history intact. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Onel5969 ^{TT me}, I'll do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streathamhill (talk • contribs) 14:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Streathamhill, round robin swap completed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and guidance Onel5969 ^{TT me}! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.214.20 (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Phoenix7119

Hi Onel5969. Thanks for reviewing my Wallace Rasmussen article. Since I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, I don't know much about the Review Process. But I plan to read more about it in the days ahead. Thank you for your time. Phoenix7119 (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix7119, you're welcome. Good luck editing on WP. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L32 Zeppelin burial site Great Burstead

Hi @Onel5969:

I saw you moved the article Leslie William Bills to draft space a couple of days ago. Would you mind taking a look at L32 Zeppelin burial site Great Burstead, which was created by the same editor, please? The article in question relates to the former grave of the crew of Zeppelin LZ 74, which crashed in Essex, England in September 1916. (The remains of the crewmen were moved and reburied elsewhere in 1966, so the grave is now empty.) I did propose a merge of the two pages, which the editor concerned rejected and the article has now been untouched for over a week. In my opinion there are several violations of WP:NOT and the referencing is very poor.

Could you take a look at L32 Zeppelin burial site Great Burstead and, if you feel it's appropriate, move it to draft space please?

Thanks Mertbiol (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mertbiol, there were quite a few issues with that article, and I agree that draftification was warranted. But not only due to the poor sourcing. The main issue is WP:COI. That editor was using WP as an advertising platform. I've moved it to draft, but if you look at the article, it indicates that they have created videos about the site, which are now posted on YouTube. Thanks for the heads up.

On another vein, have you ever thought of doing NPP work? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Onel5969:

Thanks very much for your rapid response. It's always a shame to have to jump on new editors, who are full of enthusiasm and want to do new things, but I think the actions you have taken were appropriate in this case. I don't feel I'm ready to commit to NPP work, at the moment, but thank you for asking. If I come across any similar problems, I will give you a shout!!

Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Marios Philippides

Per WP:NSCHOLAR, Marios Philippides is one of the leading scholars of the Byzantine Empire working today. He has written, edited, or translated 7 books and is a Professor Emeritus at one of the top universities in the United States, the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. In addition, he recently appeared on screen and was a historical consultant on the Netflix series, Rise of Empires: Ottoman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdalageorgas (talk • contribs) 02:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Yared Negu

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Yared Negu, which you proposed for deletion. I do not believe the article has such a problem. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! - Yitbe ^A-21 06:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for help for Draft:ESam

@Onel5969: Hi dear Onel5969, Unfortunately, Draft:ESam article declined again by Worldbruce. I would be grateful if you could guide me. Ahassannezhad (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahassannezhad, Worldbruce gave a world-class assessment of the issues with the article in their comments on your draft. Look at the Source assessment table they created for you. It's simply outstanding. In order to count towards notability, each source should have green in all three columns. For example, the first source is independent and reliable, but it doesn't cover the subject in depth. If that article had gone into depth about the subject, it would have counted towards notability. If you had two or three of those, than notability would have been shown. Your 6th source is reliable and in-depth, but as most of the information comes from the company, through an interview, it is not independent. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, So should I look for other sources anyway? Ahassannezhad (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahassannezhad, absolutely. If you feel he's notable enough, by all means do more research. However, if you think you've already done a thorough job, it might be better to turn your attention to another subject of interest. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, Thanks for your help. Ahassannezhad (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrol school

When you are available, please let me know. Best regards. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.WagnerC, hi. I think we can start at some point next week. Are you still interested? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Whiteguru. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Vegyn, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Whiteguru (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteguru, hi there. Any particular reason? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 Confusion. When I got to the page, it was not marked as reviewed. I went off reading the references (which are excellent) and when I got back to the page, I clicked it and the button went grey and stayed grey and I was wondering if an (edit conflict) had happened. It should be marked as reviewed, now. Let me check. It is, I clicked it back to reviewed. As I said, confusion.

--Whiteguru (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteguru, no worries. That happens from time to time. I always like to check to make sure I didn't miss something. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For Distinguished Service in Redirect Reviewing. 220 of ^ßorg 02:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But wait, there's more! ;-) 220 of ^ßorg 04:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

220 of Borg, thank you! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

afc reyhane parsa

do you mind accepting this Draft:Reyhaneh Parsa, this page was built by someone else.Baratiiman (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baratiiman, hi. If I were to review it, I would probably decline at this time. With only a single significant role (from what I can tell from the sourcing), they do not meet WP:NACTOR. And then there's the sourcing, about half of which is from unreliable sources (ISNA, Mehr, and Magiran), and of the other sourcing, I'm not sure of it's reliability, but they all seem to focus on her hijab controversy, so that would fall under WP:BIO1E. The one decent article and source is the Radio Farda article. If you can find more sourcing like that, it would be good to go. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it was kept in farsi.idk https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7:%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%B1%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%87%DB%8C_%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%AD%D8%B0%D9%81/%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87_%D9%BE%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7_(%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86_%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B2%D8%AF%DB%8C) Baratiiman (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Berlin 1991 Vol. I & II Deletion

Hi there, it appears yourself and User:Whiteguru have decided to speedily delete my pages for Live in Berlin 1991 Vol. I & II. Would it be possible for you to allow me to retrieve the information on these pages? I spent a considerable amount of time on them and had made them for my father. The warning I had been given was that they did not meet the WP:Notability (Music) guidelines for reliable references, despite all other studio albums pages by this artist having less references than both of my pages and no information on why the references I had provided were not suitable. I was under impression that I had fixed these issues. Thanks, iangpark (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iangpark, hi. All the information is still there, the pages have simply been turned into a redirect to the group. If you go to your contributions page, and click on the link for each of the albums, you'll see that they are now redirect pages. If you then click on that redirect's history page, you can see that all the information is still there in history. I redirected them as an WP:ATD, since they are a credible search term for someone looking into the band. If you look at WP:NALBUM, you can see what the criteria are for albums (the big ones are did it chart; was it certified gold; or has it been nominated for one of the 4 big music awards (they're listed there). If it has done any of those things, it would most likely be considered notable. But you have to provide a footnote for any of those things. Also, if there are several reviews of the albums in reliable venues (not blogs, fansites, etc.) that would also work, again, you'd have to provide the necessary refs. Simply because a group has made an album or recorded a song, doesn't necessarily make it so. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

onel5969 OK that's great - thanks for your help! iangpark (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iangpark, no worries. And if you do find the sourcing to show notability, and want me to take another look after you add them in, let me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Cassiopeia. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Julian Marquez, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Kal

Hi, Onel5969, I hope you are having a good day. I just saw that you nominated for elimination the article of the model and actress Silvia Kal. While it is true that she has done some minor roles in important films and has been featured in other medium-sized productions (although there are about twenty film and television appearances in total, and that's something to take into account), I think her work as a model ensures her presence in the encyclopedia. Appearing in the pages of Maxim, Vogue, Elle, Men's Health, Esquire and GQ magazines, independent and undoubtedly important media in the fashion world, is enough to prove her relevance in my humble opinion. You can check the references, where its presence in these magazines is demonstrated. In addition, being considered by artists like Snoop Dogg or David Bisbal to star in some of their music videos further highlights its importance.

Is there anything else I can do in the article to make you reconsider your decision? I have just added a handful more references to strengthen her relevance. Best regards! Darthvader2 (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darthvader2, hi. While being a working model is a good thing, it doesn't satisfy WP criteria for notability. You need to have several in-depth articles about her, from independent reliable sources in order to show notability. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your answer. If you look at the references I have included in the article, you will see extensive notes about Silvia Kal in GQ, Esquire and Maxim, magazines with years of tradition and worldwide recognition. Other references used such as Expreso, Official Press and Diez Minutos have recognition in Spain and in the Latin community. In addition, I consider that appearing in more than twenty film and television productions gives her relevance, too. Darthvader2 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dry humping

Why did you reverted Dry humping? is is not the same as Non-penetrative sex אלטר (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

אלטר, the concept is covered in the target. Please see WP:CFORK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's mention only shortly as Frottage (which doesn't exclude fluid exchange) but Dry humping is more broad sense and the article is more elaborating. It's also exist in other Wikipedia as separate article. אלטר (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any objections to restore the article? אלטר (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

אלטר, sorry, but it's simply a fork of the target article. If you don't feel it has adequate coverage in the target article, feel free to expand that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed merger of Brookfield Residential

Hi Onel5969. I'd like some clarity on the situation at Brookfield Residential and Brookfield Asset Management. Here is my understanding: MrsSnoozyTurtle merged Brookfield Residential into Brookfield Asset Management without proposing or discussing this action first. This violates WP:MERGE, which states that merges must be proposed and discussed first unless the merge is uncontroversial (which is not the case here). Consequently, I reverted the merge and suggested that a discussion be initiated first. It seems to me that the appropriate next step per WP:BRD would be to discuss the merge on the Talk page, not to re-revert.

As for the actual question at hand, you and MrsSnoozyTurtle suggested that Brookfield Residential is a content fork. I think it is a legitimate WP:RELART, and I'm sure other editors would agree. Brookfield Residential is a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management, but it is also a notable company in its own right, and the two Wikipedia articles have existed independent of each other for almost nine years now. That isn't to say that an argument couldn't be made in favor of merging, but to eliminate a well-trafficked nine-year-old article without even the slightest Talk page discussion seems unreasonable. As such, I would greatly appreciate if you would restore the status quo - the unmerged version - so a proper consensus on the merge can be established first. Thank you, Dvruthven (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dvruthven, sorry, but you have a coi issue in this area. The residential aspect of the asset management company is handled adequately in the parent article. That business portion does not need to have its own article as per WP:SPLIT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what my (properly disclosed) COI has to do with this? WP:MERGE is clear that a disputed merge should not be done without proposing and discussing first. The matter should be opened on the Talk page, after the premature merge is undone.

Also, to clarify, Brookfield Residential is not the residential aspect or the business portion of Brookfield Asset Management. It is a standalone company that operates independently of its parent company. Happy to share additional detail if and when the merge is undone and a discussion on the Talk page is started. Thanks, Dvruthven (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dvruthven, there's no dispute among non-COI editors. WP is not an advertising platform. Feel free to start a discussion on the parent article to see if you can gain enough support from non-COI editors to warrant a split from the parent article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debate

Hello, I would appreciate if you could please keep the debate 'merger proposal (1)' open: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Kepler_exoplanet_candidates_in_the_habitable_zone A user named SevenSpheresCelestia keeps closing the debate but no consensus has been reached after several months and editors involved. In any case, I personally believe the debate can be closed as 'consensus for 3 out of the 4 mergers proposed, and not consensus reached for KOI-4878.01'. SevenSpheresCelestia is being totally disrespectuful by attempting to merge something for which consensus hasn't been reached, and for which several editors including me have spent much time working on. Thank you for your time. Cheers. ExoEditor 19:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the discussion was closed and consensus determined by uninvolved editor User:Onetwothreeip. See this diff. ExoEditor is disruptively reverting this and removing my comment from the talk page. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Česko Slovenská SuperStar (season 2)

Well feel free to delete all 6 seasons then. Season 2 was 10 years ago and has everything what season 1 and 3 has on their pages. I put lot of my time to bring all seasons to wiki and i will not spend another hours on google to find something about 10 year old TV show. And even if i would then someone could delete season 1 or 3 and i dont have time to spend hours on them. So if season 2 breaks rules then season 1, 3 and probably 4 too. And if i could not have all here then my works is for nothing and i will not care about new seasons which are planned. Especially when web about SuperStar is new after all seasons and web about season 2 is long gone. Dancer1313 (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Actors of China Awards

There are now more reliable references, please review the article. Thanks! Puchicatos (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrosion monitoring

I reverted your revert at Corrosion monitoring. I've been working with the main author of the draft and think this is the best way to introduce the article without overwriting the history of a previous article at this title. I have requested a histmerge from the draft although it is largely the work of one author plus some cleanup from me. I have also unreviewed it, to be treated as any other new article. Lithopsian (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lithopsian, cool. I saw your revert, and suspected you were going to request a histmerge. Thanks for reaching out. And thanks for all your hard work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback on corrosion monitoring article. I will correct it.Shahramrashidi (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)* Please check changed bare URLs. Is ok?Shahramrashidi (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Shahramrashidi, yes, they are ok. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion - guardians of the Castle

I note your objections. When I have a moment I'll rewrite the sentences that you suggest need to be "in (my) own words". If I don't manage to get round to it it as "speedily" as you wish, then I suppose the page will have to go. Thanks. Arrivisto (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arrivisto, the "speedily" has nothing to do with me. WP takes copyvio issues pretty seriously. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to make some changes yourself. It's not "my baby"; I dont WP:OWN the page. Arrivisto (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Arrivisto, the article has now been deleted (not by me), but I just noticed this discussion. Onel is correct, we cannot host copyright violations in any publicly accessible part of this project - not in articles, drafts, or even article histories. If you want to copy material and work it up afterwards in your own words, please do that offline and only post it here once you're confident that it's sufficiently different from the original. There is more guidance at WP:COPYVIO. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 12:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No copyright

Hi, you jus tagged the article Parvatadvaraka dynasty created by me for speedy nomination for deletion. This is not my first article, I have created at least 16 other articles and kinda experienced at this platform for a 11 year old kid (I am 11 yrs old). I said it in my own words all right. I don't know which sentences were totally copied from the website. 😑

Elsa Fermbäck

Hi. Hope all is well with you. Could you have a look at this one. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John B123, the stub is a basic one, pretty crappy. Looking at the single source, she has won several races (outside World Cup), and that combined with her 21st place finish I think would survive an AfD. I'll mark it reviewed, but add a single source tag to it, which is what I would have done if I simply reviewed it in queue. And dammit, don't slow down!

. Seriously, thanks for all your hard work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I think you're efforts are greater than mine. My problem with the article was that the creator kept removing the {{BLP sources}} tag I added. Cheers. --John B123 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John B123, I saw that. That's why I added the single source tag. Unless more sources are added, there's reasonable rationale for removing that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A neat way around the problem. Cheers. --John B123 (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DangerKids

Hi Onel5969. You applied the speedy deletion to this article the other day. I understand this page was deleted once before, but I'd argue the TOOSOON label no longer applies. Six years have passed, the band have put another album out and they're still a going concern. Both of their albums have made it onto the Billboard charts. If people want to discuss the deletion again that's fair enough but just reverting the page to a redirect, to the page of a record label they're no longer on, seems wrong. C i d 14:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by C i d (talk • contribs)

Hi C i d - I understand your reasoning, and left the article for another editor to review, which now has been done. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Investment Manager

You reverted one of my edits for Chartered Investment Manager (formerly Canadian Investment Manager)

perhaps you can assist. Currently, the link redirect from Chartered Investment manager TO Canadian Investment Manager.

it SHOULD be the other way around. the new and current one is called Chartered Investment Manager. Wikipedia should reflect the official title.

that is what i was trying to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asadqureshy85 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asadqureshy85, what you are attempting to do is called a cut and paste move, which is not allowed for attribution reasons. See WP:CUTANDPASTE. What you have to do is "move" the article to what you feel is the correct title. If you cannot do that due to your not having the right permissions, you can request the move at WP:REQUESTED MOVES. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Post-Impressionism with Canadian Post Impressionism

I have read the page on Post-Impressionism and it seems to suggest dropping the term except for use in France. I removed the marker intending to merge the pages provided by you, and don`t know what to do now. Sorry. Maybe drop the article??? If you leave it, it would be useful for Canadians I think. Your call.Joan arden murray (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I`ve got your marker back. Could you tell me what to do next? I see that you have vast experience with Wikipedia and I appreciate the help.Joan arden murray (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joan arden murray, no, I wasn't suggesting to delete it, simply to merge it with the existing article on Post-impressionism. I agree that the content is pertinent, but feel that it is better for researchers if it is all kept in the same article. It would be different if the PI article was too long, but it isn't. If you don't have any qualms about doing that, I can take care of the merge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you, would you do it? I get so nervous I may do the wrong thing. Have to admit I am 78 years old and find wikipedia daunting sometimes.Joan arden murray (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joan arden murray, lol.... I'm not that far behind you. Sure, I'll take care of it. And it can be daunting even for experienced editors. Don't ever hesitate to ask questions. If you're polite, which you've given every indication you are, most editors will take the time to explain stuff to you. Keep on editing! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spendid job! Thank you! And thank you for the encouragement.Joan arden murray (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joan arden murray, no worries. Us old folk have to stick together

. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Racist white male

Stop broadcasting your uselessness on WIkipeida. SSH remoteserver (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Count

Wiki mark-up link

Other useful links

Links for new editors

Unknown page

Happy New Year, Onel5969!

about GEO

Deprodding of Kimberly Ritchie

Omar Al-Saadoun

PE With Joe Article

Norwegian Institute for Nature Research

Deprodding of Ibero-American Cultural Centre

Star Gold

Thanks a lot for the review!

Sofia Barclay

Reverting your redirects

Organized labour project

Reason

Speedy deletion declined: Gerard Way discography

MLL-PLL merger article redirect

Categories

GNG

A kitten for you!

Why?

Unjustified erasures

Please leave alone the article The Absurdity of Human Existence

You should have told me earlier

Laos

Speedy deletion nomination of Semaphore signal (disambiguation)

re. Yu Wensheng prod

Restore Kingman Hall issue

WP 20

Nomination of The Success Principles for deletion

Speedy deletion declined: Valerii Makovetskyi

Please Protect The Following Pages From Heavy IP Vandalism

New article

Nomination of 10 Lives for deletion

Splitting discussion for 1983 Upper Voltan coup d'état attempt

New Page Patrol School

Daniel Vladař

2018 Northeast Conference Tournament

Tatsuki Fujimoto

Good news

Re speedy deletion of Bejay Mulenga

More "not ready for mainspace"

Sorrels Field

Draft:2020–21 Amateur National Championship

Please explain your Speedy Deletion request.

America's Frontline Doctors CSD declined

Lothlorien

Michael Weirsky

Mikhail Lebedev

Claude Mélançon

Jake Puckerman

Memories (Kim Woo-seok and Lee Eun-sang song)

Reverse Copyvio

To keep you in the loop

Cuisine of Odessa page

A goat for you!

Speedy deletion nomination of Buiu (disambiguation)

Redirect of "One Thousand Pictures"

Fila (hat) reversion to “Aso Oke Hat”

Again, in a more civil tone

Starveling

About Laudi Khela article

AMSCOL notability tag

moved landmine article to draft space due to lack of sources

Nomination of SDSU Sports Deck for deletion

Are you sure?

A kitten for you!

Potential AfD

New Books Network - questions about the article

About page 1ST

Hii

Eight Verses of Bernard of Clairvaux

Speedy deletion nomination of Walter Baily's Motor

I need help for a merge

Speedy deletion nomination of Michelle M. Pillow

ČSD Class T 211.0 moved to draftspace

Ricky Meinhold