Jump to content

User talk:Onel5969

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a WikiGnome.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OS (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 30 July 2021 (→Would you be so kind as to grant my wish?: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Edit Count

Hi! You might find these handy:

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

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

I just don't understand your comments

What type of citations are you talking about? I already indicated that I was an unpaid volunteer for ACI Alliance in my disclosures from 2018. I just looked at the American College of Surgeons wiki entry and don't see any significant difference. If anything, their entry is both out of date and more advertising. Most of their citations are from their own website or publications. Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorybarry (talk • contribs) 21:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Onel5969 TT me 00:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Ricardo Estarriol

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ricardo Estarriol, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: An obituary in El País is a manifest indication of notability. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of non-free material in Blanche Bernstein entry

Having reviewed the Wikipedia guidelines for use of non-free content and use of said content in the Blanche Bernstein entry, I do not see a violation. In my judgment, the uses are a mix of excerpted quotes and paraphrases of factual material, all cited by source and within fair use. BTV55 (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC) BTV55[reply]

Sorry, quite a bit of the article is taken verbatim from 2 sources, so there is a copyvio issue. Not enough to ask for the article to be deleted, but enough that it needs to be cleaned up. Onel5969 TT me 18:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Task Force

I've submitted my then-draft or what you considered at the time to be a draft of the Presidential Task Force article as it was unsourced for review. Just letting you know since you moved the article to draft space. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stay constructive

I notice if you don’t like an article you move it to draft space without proper communicating. This is not a good practice for people who invested a lot of time in the article.

You are also moving article to draft space by blaming editors to be paid editors; for instance here and here. When asking questions, for instance User talk:Blackariteam and User talk:PopMusicFan123 . You’re not answering my questions, but instead starting more nominating more articles of me for deletion. It’s even feels becoming personal.

You moved the article American Cochlear Implant Alliance to draft space see here with the reason that the editor would be a paid editor. When the user Gregorybarry asks you for clarification; your only reply is “ I have no idea what you're talking about”.

When not moving to draft you nominator article for AfD without doing a WP:BEFORE.

Please stay constructive and communicate when you don’t like things. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportsOlympic, I think you ought to be more concerned about fixing your own poor articles, than worrying about others. Every article I send to AfD has a BEFORE done. I suggest that you start working on improving the poor articles you pump out. You've been communicated with DOZENS of times, and, if anything, are getting worse. If this continues, I see an ANI in your future. When you hound me on other pages, I don't respond, choosing to ignore your bad behavior, When the above user queried me, they provided no link to what they were talking about. I would ask you also to please stay constructive, but I think a better phrase would be to ask you to return to being constructive, rather than simply creating a lot of work for other editors. Onel5969 TT me 18:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you communicating. It’s always better to communicate instead the opposite. If you make personal attacks I would have appriciated if you came to my talk page instead of the one-sentence when moving to draft or one-sentence AfD nomination, especially because it’s becoming personal. Good you are doing WP:BEFORE, it’s a pitty you’re not very good in it. In my opinion it’s strange you didn’t know anymore you blamed someone of being a paid editor. Happy editing SportsOlympic (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SportsOlympic, it's a shame you seem ignorant of WP:VERIFY, WP:GNG, and WP:DISRUPTIVE. As I said above, you've been communicated with dozens of times, without any improvement. And if you feel there is a personal attack, rather than a truthful observation, feel free to point it out. The only personal attacks on the AfD's, has has been pointed out by other editors, are coming from you.
That being said, I'm not sure what the issue you are having lately is about. Last year it was a joy to review your articles, they were well-written, well-formatted and well-sourced. In the past 5 or 6 months you've seemingly lost interest in doing any of that. Onel5969 TT me 21:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deprodding of Laurie Michelle Bridges

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Laurie Michelle Bridges, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. 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! --Tautomers(T C) 22:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Norouzi

We are both strongly against undisclosed paid editing. (I don't think that either of us is in favor of paid editing at all, but the rules permit disclosed paid editing.) However, do you have any specific reason for thinking that article is UPE, or does it smell? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, the pic in the article was taken by the article's creator. The other editor who moved it into mainspace may be a puppet, but I haven't researched that. Onel5969 TT me 23:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That answers that. The provenance of the images is often informative. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Derrick Milano

Before proceeding with the body of my message, I wanted to note that I accidentally created a new page for Derrick Milano (at Derrick Milano) with what I thought was contesting the speedy deletion. (Before today, I hadn't tried to contest a speedy deletion on mobile.) I apologize for the error.

I would like to contest the speedy deletion, though, because as far as I can tell, the article subject is notable (in my opinion, unambiguously so) under WP:COMPOSER. The article subject has several notable compositions, and won a Grammy. The article appears to have been deleted previously in 2017; since then, the article subject both earned a Grammy and received writing credit on notable compositions.

To summarize, the article subject fulfills both points 1 and 4 under WP:COMPOSER (and maybe additional components).

  • Point 1 (Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.): Article subject is credited for writing "Savage Remix" (among other notable compositions).

Please let me know what to do to (1) revert my edits to the current Derrick Milano page that I made in an erroneous effort to contest the speedy deletion and (2) contest the speedy deletion.

Thanks for your help with this! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 03:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was already deleted, I left a message on the talk page of the deleting editor (User:Materialscientist) as instructed in the speedy deletion instructions you left on my talk page, so you can probably disregard the messages I've left here. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 03:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, the article is now restored! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 22:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting discussion for John Gielgud, roles and awards

An article that you have been involved with (John Gielgud, roles and awards ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud). Notice of this proposal has not been circulated by the nominator to contributors. If you are interested, please visit the discussion.

The article List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud already exists and has been created duplicating material in the article John Gielgud, roles and awards: it has therefore been nominated for deletion, and the disucssion can be found here. Contributions to either or both discussions are welcomed.

Thank you. Smerus (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deprodding of Music and the United States' suffragettes

I am leaving this message to let you know that the article Music and the United States' suffragettes that you tagged for Proposed Deletion was removed by another user, and they failed to leave a note on your talk page about it. They also appear to not have given any reason for doing so. This can be seen in the articles edit history. As you were not informed, I have taken it upon myself to leave this here so you may consider either perusing Articles for Deletion, or improving and tagging the article with Edit Templates as adding a new PROD is not permitted. Kind regards, --Tautomers(T C) 20:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As some additional notes because I have interacted with you before on this topic. I actually brought this up several days ago with this user and it fell on deaf ears and I am quite convinced he operates in bad faith on this based on the responses, petty behavior elsewhere, and ultimately deleting my message of his talk page. The important bit is I am countering this (hence this message). Also he removed several WP:Template index tags from the article which you may want to consider adding back as well. --Tautomers(T C) 20:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tautomers, hi. Yes, that's a pretty problematic editor, and thanks for the heads up. I saw they deprodded it, and am waiting for another NPP to take a look at it. I missed they had removed the tags, so I've now restored them. You can also restore tags if you think it's appropriate. Again, thanks. Onel5969 TT me 23:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken copyvio

You placed a G12 tag on my page, Solar eclipse of June 16, 2178, stating it to be a copyvio of this website. Actually, I copied IN Wikipedia, not from other websites.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-1229b, Okay, then you didn't provide that attribution in the edit summary, so I had no way of knowing. Could be that the other site also copied from WP. You can ask the deleting admin to restore the page, with the above explanation, but in the future you must provide attribution, so as to comply with copyright laws, even when copying from WP. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I thought it was unusual for you, since I've reviewed quite a few of your articles. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 TT me 23:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I remember attributing it in my sandbox.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC):[reply]

Javad Daraei

Dear Onel5969 Javad Daraei article was not made for any money Javad Daraei is an independent director in exile who was tortured and arrested by the Iranian government for the content of his films.


And he received a grant from the Artist Protection Fund to study in the USA. And Aid For Artists In Exile, a human rights organization, helped him finish his film, And wrote about him on this site https://aid-a.com/artists-projects/

With love, AMIRNAGHSHI (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sen Brahmana

According to the logs, you draftified this as not ready - however from my reading it appears to meet the presumed notability for a populated place - I'm inclined to accept with that presumption of notability, but I figured I'd check with you first since you draftified it. If you could ping me with any comments you have on it I can take another look, but I'm leaving it for now until I hear from you. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berchanhimez, thanks for the ping. Accuweather is not a reliable source for terms of showing whether or not a play exists as a populated place, same thing for sites like Google Maps. You'd need something from an official government source (e.g. the census bureau). Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 12:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. It may just be me being crazy about not declining things that don't need declining, but a google search turns up a few sources (two of which are on the blacklist, but seem to be semi-reliable reproductions of census results and also [1]) that show that it's a legitimate place - at least from what I can see. Sure, they aren't the most reliable of sources, but from what I can see, the place exists and is a census recognized place. Given GEOLAND, I don't see any reason to decline it at this point - as much as I may disagree with towns of only a couple hundred people being notable, GEOLAND says that any "Populated, legally recognized place" is presumed to be notable. Personally, I have no problem with accepting it and it being sent to AFD for a more full discussion - but given GEOLAND I am leaning towards accepting - but again I'll be more than open to your opinion on the matter given the less-than-fully-reliable-ness of the available sources and that you draftified it. If you'd prefer I accept and you can send to AFD, again I have no problem with such even if the result is to delete - that would at least prevent accept-draftify-accept-draftify over and over as there'd be an AfD result for it. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 07:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just another link - official government this time - [2] (page 84 in the PDF). Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 07:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Berchanhimez, blacklisted sites should never be considered. Sites which appear to reproduce government info, but are not government info, are not eligible either to show that it actually is a legally recognized place. This is especially true for Indian sites, which show pincodes, climate info, etc. There's a site like that for US places, which when I was first active on WP, I used to use all the time, before I learned that it was not reliable. Sometimes even government sources are not 100% reliable (like the US GNIS source). So if I was simply answering your first statement above, I would not approve the article. Just because a place exists (or existed) does not mean it passes WP:GEOLAND. That being said, your second comment, with a census pdf clearly shows that this is an officially recognized populated place, so that's the trump card. Onel5969 TT me 11:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BRC member redirects

Hi, when creating the BRC article I was minded Emanuel Admassu seemed to have less claims for Wikipedia notability compared to most or not all of the other members. Sekou Cooke's case seemed much stronger, there's a book also and connection to Hip-hop architecture may be stronger than that to the BRC redirect. I've chosen to undo your redirect. I've added a notability concern tag and unsure what way it would go, or even what way I would !vote at an AfD. Not investigated J. Yolande Daniels case ... and I don't have the bandwidth ... but I hope to pull back an earlier G13'd draft of same to check for copyright/attribution issues or socking.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, thanks for the note. You could be right, but when I reviewed the article, the current sourcing did not show notability. A WP:BEFORE, does indeed show some coverage, but I did not see enough to pass WP:GNG. The three best articles were an interview (doesn't go to notability), a press release (not-independent), and a short article in Archinect. The last piece, however, has a long quote from the employer, and bears a resemblance to the type of article where it's really a press release, simply re-worded by the author. I also considered laying a notability tag on it, but it had been tagged for a few weeks already, for needing citations, without improvement, so I felt a stronger action was needed. Yet, I felt there was a chance they could be shown to be notable, so did not feel PROD/AfD was appropriate. Therefore the choices were Draftify or Redirect. Hope this helps you to understand the review process. Onel5969 TT me 12:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@onel5969: What is your view of the FEMMEpissoire at Draft:J. Yolande Daniels? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark, hi. Not sure exactly what you're asking here. I'm pretty sure it's not for my personal opinion of that piece. So, if it's whether or not that piece goes to notability, I'd have to say no. There's not nearly enough coverage of it to make the piece notable, and it's not in the permanent collection of a major museum. Hope that's what you're looking for, Onel5969 TT me 13:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand if you think I am taking the piss, but per [3] I'd have to disagree. To add to the issues the FEMMEpissoire was on the recovered earlier G13 deleted incarnation; and while that incarnation has nothing on BRC stuff the existing redirect history has BRC stuff but no FEMMEpissoire. 'Tis a bit of mess all round, and may need wider eyes .... with new information seems a DRV candidate. (NB: I regard you in good faith in all of this). Forcing an AfD would also be an option. Any thoughts? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark, not sure what the term "taking the piss" means, but contextually I think I understand you. And no, I don't think that. I think you're trying to communicate and not make a big issue of somethin and create a lot of work for other editors. Which is highly commendable. Unfortunately your link above is not a valid link, so unsure what you're attempting to say with that. There are two articles about female urination devices (not sure why, but that's another issue), and neither mentions FEMMEpissoire. I haven't evaluated all the folks mentioned in your BRC article, just the few I've come across in NPP, but the best of them have questionable notability. Despite what it appears, I actually hate sending articles to AfD, has that can be such a time suck. Not saying I'm afraid to (certainly no one could claim that), just that I don't like to. Unfortunately sometimes it's the only way to get articles improved. I'm seeing a lot of primary sourcing here, and not the type of in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable refs which would indicate a GNG pass. And btw, I always consider other's editing in AGF, unless they prove otherwise. Which is definitely not an issue in your case, you are always careful and thoughtful. Onel5969 TT me 15:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I initially used a {{u}} instead of a {{Diff}} but I think its now fixed. The notability key point revolves around Alex Schweder's 2016 claim regarding the 1996 FEMMEpissoire,[1] namely that "Daniels’swas the first female urinal to allow its user to observe her body evacuating itself of urine." I am minded with that additional information any article would likely survive AfD in my estimation. If an article were to go forward I would prefer to see a merge of the two existing articles ... with appropriate attribution. ... (sorry have to dash) .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mulling this over and I apologise for raising this matter poorly. I personally remain strongly minded Daniels is worthy of a mainspace article with addition information from the FEMMEpissoire supplemented by Schweder's piece would likely survive AfD if you or anyone felt that appropriate. I am mindful of your comment and I am inclined to think DRV may unnecessarily pull in too many experienced editors too soon ... better to have an AfD first if anyone can go though the BEFORE process. I'll probably do this today or the day after when I hope (repeat hope) to have some contiguous time space. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Schweder, Alex (2016). "A Piss Poor Performance" (PDF). Dirty Furniture. Vol. 3: Toilet. pp. 104–107. ISBN 9780993351129. OCLC 962802913.

The Key of Avalon

This page has sources from IGN, Gamespot, Dengeki, Sega itself etc. why can't it have a page??

I made pages like Dragon Treasure and Sega Network Taisen Mahjong MJ as well, and they are no problem?

Pinging @Red Phoenix to phone in please. OtopNr.3 (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OtopNr.3: (and apologies to Onel5969 if I'm intruding) - There is a difference in this one, and that has to do with the Manual of Style for video game articles. WP:VG/CONTENT requires development and reception sections, reliably sourced. Sega Network Taisen Mahjong MJ only really gets away without just because it's a stub at the moment, but the sections that give notability to video games are development/history and reception. Coverage of gameplay or that the game was released, even by reliable sources, can be deemed "routine coverage" and therefore not notability-conferring. I would consider draftifying your work and researching to find development or at a very minimum critical reception, as that will go a long way toward meeting WP:GNG. Red Phoenix talk 02:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
, not intruding at all, thanks for explaining it for me. Onel5969 TT me 02:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply Red Phoenix, I'll rewrite it in the sandbox and let you see it again.OtopNr.3 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenix:@Onel5969: Expanded it a bit. What do you guys think? I searched high and low for critical reception and development info, this is all I could find sadly. There was a good interview on the SEGAVoice Interview archives (Interview Number 20), which sadly is not archived by the WayBack Archive.OtopNr.3 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OtopNr.3, it's definitely better, but still not enough in-depth sourcing, imho. Onel5969 TT me 00:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not much more I can do sadly in terms of sourcing. Can I add a stub or "need more sources" tag on this article (as well as future ones with similar subject matter a.k.a. rather obscure Japanese arcade/console games from Sega.), and be done with it? OtopNr.3 (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OtopNr.3, I think this is a perfect case of why some of these games don't have articles, but instead are left as redirects. If there's not enough sourcing, then it doesn't pass GNG. I'm sorry. Onel5969 TT me 13:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: OK, managed to find an interview that discusses the game's version 2. And also added a source that explains the game's rules from an official Japanese gaming site rather than from an english fanblog. Wonder if that helps? EDIT: Managed to find one more thing about the producer's role of this game.OtopNr.3EDIT#2@Red Phoenix: Once again pinging Red Phoenix to weigh on this matter...(talk) 18:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Ivan Yastrebov

I have added new articles now. I think these references are sufficient. and I remove the template. Thanks for your contributions. Jescfan2000 (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from GreaterPonce665

Hello, Onel5969. You have new messages at Talk:Guthrie S. Birkhead Jr..
Message added 15:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 15:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarakote parganah

Hi ! Greetings from India. I noticed recently that you haved added "unclear citation" tag to the above mentioned article. I'm trying to improve that article, could you please tell me what exactly is unclear in the citation and how can I correct it ? Thank you ! Jonas7798 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas7798, greetings from the US. If you take a look at WP:CIT, you'll see the type of information you need in references/footnotes, in order for stuff to pass WP:VERIFY . In short, you need to provide enough information in the sourcing so that if someone was researching, they could easily look it up and find the info in the source. For example, simply listing a publication isn't enough, give as much info as you can, title, author, page number, etc. The above link is very useful for this. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 00:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Onel5969:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.[reply]

CSD of Empower Work

Hi Onel5969, you recently CSDed Empower Work what issues do you see in the article? (I'm not that experienced in writing articles, so please give me any feedback you have)

-- Justiyaya 14:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justiyaya, it's already been deleted, so I can't look at it to refresh my memory, but if it's the article I think it was directly copy-pasted from a website, and therefore was a copyright violation. When you write on WP, you have to write in your own words, and then source it with outside references. See WP:COPYVIO for more in-depth explanations. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 14:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was an unambiguous advertising tag. Justiyaya 14:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft restored at Draft:Empower Work Justiyaya 15:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Justiyaya, oh, okay, than it read more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. This can be an issue for new editors, as they attempt show notability, and in doing so come off as promotional. And not just new editors. If I were you, I'd ask the admin who deleted it to restore it in draftspace, and then go through AfC, where more experienced editors can give you advice as you develop the article. Onel5969 TT me 15:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be my "experianced editor"? Justiyaya 15:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Justiyaya, I don't normally do that, as I'm pretty busy in gnomish crap here on WP (way too much to my liking, but it's got to get done), but sure. I've already left a message on the draft's talk page. Don't expect too much activity from me, however, but I'll look at it once or twice a day. Onel5969 TT me 15:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait also... You should really archive your talk page (had to scroll like a second just to get to the end of the table of contents) Justiyaya 15:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and reference

Most of the independent news sources are in print media... I'm not sure if they are allowed, because they are epaper in PDF FORMAT Ponnerro (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ponnerro, hi. I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Onel5969 TT me 19:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cerrone discography

Hi, I've gone through WP:SPLIT and found my issue still wanting. You've assumed that there is a need for attribution, as when I 'created' the Cerrone discography page, I had sourced the information online and had not used the information found at Cerrone's Wikipedia page. So surely there is no need for attribution as I am therefore the sole attributor? However, in order that this doesn't turn into an edit war, I will follow the ‘licensing requirements' and add the attribution. DPUH (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DPUH, hi, and thanks for the conversation. I do not disagree with your assessment of the need for attribution. That being said, several times over the last 3 years virtually the same issue has come up, and even though you didn't do a simple cut and paste, the ptb's have argued that there is still a need for attribution. Been a busy day for me, or else I probably would have explained it better prior to this thread. Regardless, my apologies for not being more explicit in my edit summary. Thanks for all you do on the project. Onel5969 TT me 01:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for letting me know about the need for attribution, will remember to do it properly in future. Have added attribution to the Cerrone pages, let me know if I haven't done right. Thanks, DPUH (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed payments

Hi Onel. No payments were taken to create the Phil De Luna article. I'm almost flattered! It's hard to prove a negative, of course, but I am just volunteer with a bit of Wiki familiarity. I was going to create a couple of other nominee articles but this whole process is discouraging.

If a tag is necessary can we just revert to the ones that were initially there? Or simply the general POV tag? My concern now is that anyone happening across the page will encounter an insinuation that the subject has acted unethically when he hasn't had anything to do with the creation of the article. (He may have edited as anon -- I am not sure.) I only removed the tags as I'd hoped Somej's editing would allay the POV concerns. Thanks. Greenbound (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbound, I took a look at your userpage and talkpage before applying the tag to see if you had declared as per WP:UPE. While not clearly defined at that link, payment, imho, does not have to only take the form of monetary remuneration. Therefore volunteers might be deemed as receiving some non-monetary benefit. At the very least, if you remove the upe tag, you need to add a COI tag. Am pinging an admin for their viewpoint, Barkeep49. Don't want to dissuade you from editing, but you shouldn't edit articles about subjects you have a connection to. AGF, I've removed the UPE and replaced it with the COI tag. Onel5969 TT me 14:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am unfamiliar with these things so if you prefer the COI tag that's fine. I wouldn't mind being mentored in how to ultimately get the tags removed. Until Somej yesterday no one had helped me edit the article. As for being connected, I have met De Luna at a park clean-up and on Zoom calls but there's no big backroom deal here! This may work against his purposes by downplaying notability, but there is virtually no chance he wins this election.
I can understand that Wiki needs to be careful about COI but there is a contradiction at work. Vast swathes of edits are done by people connected to the subject, right? 44th Canadian federal election. I would be willing to wager that almost every blue link on this has been created by a staffer or volunteer. How do we square that circle in terms of COI? I'm not trying to be tendentious. I am genuinely curious. It's an important question for a project like Wiki. Greenbound (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A close connection is different than a connection. The idea is that we want editors who can write with a neutral point of view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Barkeep. I had hoped the article had become neutral but I am not in the best position to judge having written most of it. If it helps, I can avoid editing it directly and post suggestions on its talk page. Although that would require someone to babysit. Greenbound (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Santhosh Damodharan

Hey, I accepted the article which clearly has COI/UPE concerns. I also noticed that you had notified the user on this and asked them to address/declare their COI. They haven't done that so far but I accepted it already. If this is a wrong move, please undo my accept. This is also a question that I always had in mind (still learning) - if a page clearly has COI but is notable, do we not accept it unless the COI has been addressed? Or, do we put a tag of COI/UPE and then accept it? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadicghumakkad, thanks for reaching out. The purpose of draftifying COI/UPE articles is so that they can go through the AfC vetting process. You're a fine AfC reviewer, and if you vetted it, then moving it back is perfectly fine. Personally, I wouldn't until they've declared, but that's just me, I feel pretty strongly about UPE and think they should never be encouraged, but others feel fine. COI is slightly different, but same philosophy. Regarding the tag, if they have not addressed the issue, then the UPE tag should remain until they do. If it's a COI issue, and the AfC reviewer feels the article is neutral in tone, they can by all means remove it. And regarding approving COI articles which are clearly notable, I wouldn't until the article is written neutrally. But again, that's me. Keep up your good work over at AfC, it's important, and mostly goes unrewarded. Onel5969 TT me 03:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969, humbled and delighted to have your positive opinion on my AFC reviews so far!!! Such pockets of motivation really keep me going. I was a tad disappointed when my temporary NPP rights were not continued since I had made some mistakes with tagging pages which had COI concerns that automatically marked them as reviewed. But this is just great. You have made my day. Duly noted all your points. Neutrality is a major one for me as well. In fact, I get even more conservative on sources and absolutely hate people using primary sources to cite information - no matter notability is already proven or not. I still feel resistant to put UPE tags and prefer to put COI tags first until and unless it is absolutely obvious. Have been taught some COI nabbing skills by an editor I really admire so making progress with those. I might bother you more with my COI/UPE doubts case to case basis! Thank you and good night! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI mention

Hi Onel5969 - hope you are well. For info, and incase you didn't get the ping, I mentioned you in this thread with regards to the aricle patrolling you have done in relation to articles I've created. I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Choujin X

Hi Onel5969, hope you're doing well. Before some months, I created an article about a manga named Choujin X. But it got moved to draft, I guess because of lack of citations? That's why I added more citations to the article. Though this manga is completely new, that's why I don't have enough information. But I tried my best to add many sources as possible. Can you please review my article and see if it's eligible for being published or not.

Here's the article: Draft:Choujin X SenseiArunava (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Athena Salman controversy

I did some checking and the source in the article makes no mention of "blood libel." I also found this source that mentions it and quotes another senator making the blood libel claim. That section seems to be WP:UNDUE as it doesn't seem to get enough coverage to be a controversy, and certainly it's written with a very strong POV, especially for a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish, I actually agree with you. I was AGF on the part of the editor who added it, but now see that it was slanted. I also agree that simply including that would fall under undue. Onel5969 TT me 18:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Glad that was resolved so smoothly. Happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

Thanks for being so willing to share your knowledge. For a complex area such as NPP, this is essential. Thanks for all the answered questions :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Novem Linguae. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 TT me 22:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ondipudur Flyover

Hi I was thinking of redirecting this to Coimbatore but I see you already reverted an attempt to do this back in May. I just wondered what your objection was? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, I actually have no objection. My revert wasn't of it being redirected, but the redirection was malformed. They had simply added a redirect template to the top of the article, and left the body of the article intact. Onel5969 TT me 22:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see thanks. Mccapra (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A favour

Hi Onel... It's been awhile. How are you keeping during COVID-19? Hope your well! I'm sending you this message because I believe this article should be redirected due to its lack of content. Is there anything you can do to help out? Thanks! The Optimistic One (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Optimistic One, hi. Yeah, had Covid around last Thanksgiving, was much worse with the flu in Paris in 2019. Hope you've weathered the storm. I agree regarding that character, have redirected it to the series cast list. Onel5969 TT me 02:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really, well I'm awaiting test results right now due to showing symptoms. Let's hope its negative. Thanks for that btw, I would do it often but I'm not using a PC. The Optimistic One (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. On further readings through The Office-related articles, I found that the articles Darryl Philbin, Phyllis Vance, and Creed Bratton (The Office) all show no indication of real-world notability.

Dawn Tinsley, from the British version; also has zero references. I noticed as well that the season articles are listed as American season #. I don't think that this is relevent information. The British version only had two, and are referred to as series's and it should be rare now for someone to get confused with the two. The Optimistic One (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Optimistic One, while I absolutely love the show (one of the few tv shows I've actually watched), I agree that not every character meets notability criteria. In addition, all 3 of these consist entirely of plot, without any of the elements which would allow a fictional character to have an article (development of the character, reception, etc.). Dawn Tinsley is even easier to redirect, with zero sourcing. Regarding the titles, I think that's due to titling conventions. Although I'm not sure. You might ask a question over at the television project. I think they are simply being consistent. Pleasure as always. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Appreciate the help! The Optimistic One (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NBOOKs

I don't agree here. The book meets #1 criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT having been used as a source by a number of scholarly publications,[4][5][6][7][8] and it has been also catalogued by Princeton Univeristy,[9] National Library of Australia[10] and others. It is fine to keep standalone article of this book. LearnIndology (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LearnIndology, then add them to the article. Onel5969 TT me 16:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPP school

Hi Onel5969. I was interested in joining the NPP school and I was wondering if you would be willing to take me on as a student. I have been a Wikipedian since 2018 and I've written a few articles, but the NPP process looks pretty complicated and nuanced, so I think that the NPP school would be a useful learning experience. I've graudated CVUA, so I know about a bit about the speedy deletion criteria (although I don't know how important that would be in new page reviewing - maybe G11s?) Clovermoss (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clovermoss, I'd be honored to help you through the process. This morning, I'll set up your NPP school page and ping you when I do. Welcome aboard. Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's created, Clovermoss. You can find it at User:Onel5969/Clovermoss/NPP. Looking forward to it. Onel5969 TT me 21:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Measure of presortedness

Hi,

You moved a page I wrote to draft. I had some question about what to do, it seemed not clear to me. Can you please answer on the draft's discussion page? Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur MILCHIOR, responded there. Onel5969 TT me 12:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Army (International Military-Technical Forum)

Hi, Dear Onel5969.

You have moved an article to the draft because of official sources.

There is only official site as sources, cause all journalists was in lockdown. And there was only guests and customers from different countries on this forum. --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Borisenko, then it probably won't meet notability criteria. Just because folks were in lockdown, doesn't mean that no news was reported. Onel5969 TT me 12:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about: Goverment site, Military journal, Kremlin site, Rostech site, Army technolohy site, TASS site? --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Spiritual science"

Hi Onel5969

I have made an article to explain the concept "spiritual science", and it has been deleted by you. I don´t understand that. The term "spiritual science" (in this specific meaning) is not only used by Rudolf Steiner. It is also used by for example Martinus (Martinus Thomsen). And there are reliable sources for that, as you can see in the references. "Spiritual science" is neither limited to nor identical with Anthroposophy. To redirect it to Anthroposophy also makes other internal links meaningless (for example in the article "Martinus Thomsen"). Please don´t redirect "spiritual science" to Anthroposophy again. It is unneccessary, because I´ve made a clear cross-reference to the article "Anthroposophy" under the section "Rudolf Steiner" in my article. Alexandramander (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Finnegan (The Bold and the Beautiful) - Notability Tag

Hello!

I hope all is well! I have noticed that you have added a notability tag within the following article I just heavily worked on: John Finnegan (The Bold and the Beautiful). I am highly confused about why this was added and pondering how I could remedy this issue? Can I gain some guidelines in order that I can remove the tag? As you can see, excessive research has been done using a profuse amount of secondary sources. The character's full name is John Finnegan, but he is referred to as "Finn" on the series, so the google search may vary on his name if that is the confusion (however, he is credited in closing credits as John Finnegan). The character has been on the series for a year and is already very notable within the canvas, and recognized especially due to the character's romantic relationship with one of soap opera's female leads and fathering her child. Essentially, in soap opera lingo, we call this the character linked to a "legacy" character and has fathered a "legacy" child. This alone warrants him an article and the casting, expansion and introduction of his family members. This soap opera character is a major player and is portrayed by a contracted actor. Once again, I am just highly confused about how this article does not meet the notability criteria when there has been significant coverage of the character, references are reliable, sources are all secondary, it is very independent of the subject and once again deeply presumed for reasons cited above.

Thank you! Best,  — AwardShowFan123 (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AwardShowFan123, the coverage needs to be in-depth, and not solely "in-universe". While he is a notable character on the show, that does not translate into notability outside the show. When you take all the fan stuff away regarding the character on the show, there is very little left. Onel5969 TT me 17:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
onel5969; No offence, but I could not disagree with you more and your assessment. I am highly confused because there are so many soap opera fictional character pages out there, who does not have half the research, sources and references I have and there is no "notability" tag. I literally do not understand how this character does not merit his own page when I have done excessive research and have proven especially in the casting, characterization, relationship and critical reception sections the character's impact and romantic pairing this past year. Therefore, I want to fight this in any way I can to remove this tag so how do I contest this? Furthermore, the coverage is IN-DEPTH. The character's introduction as well was done when Bold and Beautiful, was the first United States scripted production to return taping during the COVID-19 restrictions, and his character (even his first airdate) was discussed in those secondary sources announcing the series' return. So, the impact was beyond the "in-universe" you speak of. Again, please let me know what I can do to remove the tag. Thank you.  — AwardShowFan123 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AwardShowFan123, only way is to improve the sourcing in regards to real world notability. As I said, most of the stuff in the article is in-universe. Onel5969 TT me 20:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
onel5969;"Real-world notability"? I am truly stuck on this because I have no idea the significance of that. Like what is it you looking for; what type of sources? It is a soap opera fictional character page. I have followed the same structure of that a bunch of other similar soap pages has done, and yet those pages have not been targeted for "notability".  — AwardShowFan123 (talk, contribs) 21:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AwardShowFan123, so how is that character, not the actor, not the show, the character, show any real world notability. You have in there how fans received the actor who portrays the character, how certain plot lines...yada yada yada. That's all in-universe. Onel5969 TT me 21:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
onel5969; It is NOT just fans; it is actually reliable critics of soap operas who have written columns about the character and their reception on his notability. Also, the way fans have received the actor is the exact same thing as how fans received the character. They work together simultaneously, so again, I am not sure what your point is. Are you familiar with soap opera fictional characters pages because they ALL follow the same structure. What I did wasn't out of the ordinary. So again, this is confusing, and I think you made an error of judgment and the tag should be removed.  — AwardShowFan123 (talk, contribs) 21:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JJakathestrength, it's still all in-universe. And I really don't care about weak WP:OSE arguments. Onel5969 TT me 21:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
onel5969; Okay, well I didn't really care about your notability tag, but I want to improve the article, so here am I but you are not giving me anything to work with. I would appreciate of an example of what you are looking for. Because this still makes no sense to me, and I believe the article is in good shape.  — AwardShowFan123 (talk, contribs) 21:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Laurie Michelle Bridges

Hi! ,I left my answer in the proposal of speedy deletion on Laurie Michelle Bridges, but I did not have answer.
Here I copy it:
In the previous proposal for deletion, I was late to participate in the debate. Please, this biography is very valuable to the library community, I believe that it should not be deleted.
  • Keep
This librarian is a very important woman to the international library community, regardless of the traditional publishing circuit. The concept of notability should not be tied to the article indexing ranking when, ultimately, she is a person with various academic publications.
Having her biography allows many people to know the impact of women librarians of the 21st century. I also believe that the fact that her article in the Spanish edition of wikipedia remains alive, shows the relevance of her existence. Thanks in advance!
I have also located several interviews that this important woman for the library community has given and could help improve the article, if you would allow me to include them:
https://www.archivozmagazine.org/en/freedom-access-can-be-hindered-in-many-ways/ https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/October_2019/Contents/Wikipedia_Library_report https://blogs.ifla.org/lpa/2020/04/20/wikipedia-and-academic-libraries-what-are-the-needs-and-issues-an-interview-with-laura-bridge-raymond-pun-and-roberto-arteaga/ https://journal.code4lib.org/articles/10424 https://fjerezsocialmedia.com/2015/05/22/entrevista-con-laurie-bridges/
I will be attentive, thanks for your support

Virc587 (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virc587, hi. I see you've already left a message on Explicit's talk page, so I'll let them address the issue. Onel5969 TT me 15:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Onel5969 TT me
Having your answer would also be very helpful. I still cannot find support on this issue to understand what I am doing wrong and the answers evade my argument: I was late to the debate, which did not take my argument into account and the biography meets at least two criteria of general notability.
Thanks for your support! Virc587 (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Virc587, while you were late to the discussion (since you added your comment after the discussion was already closed, something which should not be done), your comments do not show how how she passes either WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. And there has been no evasion on answering your questions. Explicit told you the same thing I just did, the subject currently does not meet either of those guidelines. Onel5969 TT me 16:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know how to do it. The truth is that I am quite new, and I realized afterwards that I should not have intervened. He didn't know what else to do either. The biography does meet the guidelines, but I will leave these arguments for another opportunity, I already have it documented. I will do the draft, as explained to me in other comments, and I will try to learn how to improve this experience. Hugs! Virc587 (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaiden Animations draft

So is this ready to pass notability? Please see Draft talk:Jaiden Animations and chime in on whether this is now ready to pass notability. If enough of the objectors in AFC and AFDs are on board, we can push to remove the salt. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, commented there. Thanks for the ping. Onel5969 TT me 18:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurun

Hi, hope all is well with you, can a have a look at this one. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John B123, I did this morning. This was put back into mainspace by one of those half-dozen or so poor editors I mentioned at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Editors who continue to produce really poor stubs. Normally I would move it to draft, but that would simply be an exercise in futility. And it may or may not pass an AfD, since the sourcing is so incredibly poor. When we had that editor who was doing something similar regarding Canadian rivers, I'm beginning to remove information which is either unsourced or does not have enough sourcing to pass WP:VERIFY, which is what I just did at that article, after looking at it again. I'm not sure either source clearly shows that this is a legally recognized place. But the only two options are draftify or AfD. Onel5969 TT me 20:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for having a look. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC for Vaush

I recently created a draft for an article on Vaush. However, upon seeing that an article on him was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaush, I decided to put the article through the AfC process instead of moving it straight to mainspace. If you have any comments feel free to discuss the draft page at its talk page Draft talk:Vaush. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Garfias

What should be done with this article? A user decided upon themself that the page is fine to be article/wikified, with barely any changes since originally being changed into a draft. Just taking a quick look at the references, it's clearly not ready to be an article: 15/18 of the *sources* are from IMDb (which is a no-no, WP:RS/IMDb and WP:Citing IMDb), 2 of the sources are from TV Maze, which I am quite familiar with and is a WP:USERG site, and one source is from something called 'Xwhos', of which, I am not quite sure what its WP:RS status is, but to me, appears to be WP:NOTRS. It's clear this article is not ready for the mainspace... Magitroopa (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also seems like you had a similar situation like this with the same editor doing the same thing regarding Draft:David Michery... Magitroopa (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Magitroopa, I removed all the uncited material or material cited by unreliable sources. Which is basically the entire article. I moved it back into draftspace. I'm not sure it passes notability criteria, but clearly doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, he's a working actor, but has had no significant roles. Onel5969 TT me 22:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwuemeka Fred Agbata

Please can you enlightened me more about the revisions you made to the above named article. Please can you give more explanation about the reason for reverting the added information and citations. I'll be happy to learn. Ptinphusmia (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ptinphusmia, please read WP:UPE and WP:COI, and follow the instructions there. Onel5969 TT me 13:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guacolda (mapuche mythology)

@Onel5969, could you explain better which criteria you used to consider the article does not meet WP:VER? Which kind of references should be enough as she is mentioned in La Araucana? Thanks. Amitie 10g (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amitie 10g, almost the entire article is unsourced. Onel5969 TT me 23:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD revert

Apologies. Slip of the finger, Cheers. -- Longhair\talk 02:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longhair, lmao... no worries. And btw, thanks for all your work here on the project. I don't think we've ever interacted before, but who knows after all this time. Onel5969 TT me 02:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've interacted now, even if it was due to the cat walking across the keyboard, 'cept I don't own a cat. All the best :D -- Longhair\talk 02:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Longhair, it's funny you mention a cat walking across the keyboard. When my daughter moved to Tokyo, we inherited her cat. Which means I inherited it, and it has become quite attached to me. I've I'm not paying enough attention to him, he will sit on my desk and keep swatting my hands as I attempt to type, sometimes causing some interesting typos. Once, I was in the middle of editing a page for copyvio issue, and left the edit window open while I went and grabbed a cup of coffee, When I returned, he had obviously been pacing back and forth on my desk, as the page was now unintelligible. My first thought was, "wow, glad he didn't hit enter.". Onel5969 TT me 16:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification regarding Padma Rao Sundarji article moved to draftspace

My article Draft: Padma Rao Sundarji has been moved to the draft space. I would like to clarify a few points here-

1. I have already declared paid contribution on User:ShravanthiRK as well as on the talk page of the draft. So I am unable to figure out what UPE/COI issue I have to sort out?
2. I have provided independent sources which significantly covers the subject (the person) and it is not a passing mention. It is print media which talks about the writer, her work, her professional associations with news organisations, her interviews of notable people along with the review of her book. This was published by a Srilankan daily newspaper, which in my opinion, is independent of the subject, published by a third party with no direct connection to the subject and is a reliable source.
3. I have cited the details of her published books which in itself are primary reliable sources. Also cited as references are book reviews by leading newspapers, which are acceptable according to wiki guidelines.
4. I am unable to figure out what part of the article needs more sources or needs to be removed? Please point out the same as I dont seem to understand this.
5. I have cited news articles written by third party and published by leading newspapers, which cover news about her as a journalist.
So what more are we looking for? Please help me understand the same. I have had my article reviewed multiple times and have made many changes after receiving feedback from each reviewer. It is only after confirming that my references are good enough to be cited that I moved the draft to the mainspace. Request you to explain exactly where I have gone wrong? Thanks in advance! ShravanthiRK (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ShravanthiRK, that's great that you admitted your connection. Doesn't mean the article meets notability criteria. And COI editors should not directly edit articles, they should be reviewed first. Your article has been reviewed, and declined, half a dozen times. She's a working journalist, but not a notable one. You need to go through AfC to get the draft approved. Onel5969 TT me 16:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply, Onel5969. I will go through the AfD process. However, I request you to clarify regarding the sources as I do not wish to get my submission declined again. Requesting you to point out to me exactly which part needs correction, which are the sources to be removed and what part of the article needs more references. Please advise. Thanks again! ShravanthiRK (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ShravanthiRK, please read WP:GNG, you need several in-depth coverage pieces about her, from independent, reliable sources in order to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 16:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now all the sources I have which have a significant direct and detailed coverage of the subject are in print media. I have read wiki guidelines and understand that the sources need not be available online. However, I wish to understand if they would still be considered as significant coverage to establish notability. The reason I ask is because I am trying my hardest for my submission not to be declined again for referencing reasons. Request you to help me understand please! Thank you! ShravanthiRK (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Marys Bay French

Hi! I added another source to Draft:St. Marys Bay French, which you moved to draftspace and marked as not ready for mainspace. I was wondering if you could give it another look, and perhaps make specific suggestions for what else is needed. Specifically, I do recognise that it's not a very full article, but I've run into many much sparser articles in mainspace, so I'm not sure I understand what the exact criteria are. Any guidance would be appreciated! —Firespeaker (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firespeaker, nice job. Moved it into mainspace. Onel5969 TT me 17:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, good to see! Thanks! —Firespeaker (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for moving pages in draftspace

Hi, I saw that you moved some pages I created in the draftspace, including Sicilian Spring, which had elected a deputy in the Sicilian Assembly with its own symbol. In this specific case, is it a matter of notability or of sources? Because I've seen so many pages of much more irrelevant Italian parties than this ...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scia Della Cometa, hi. As I said in my note on your talk page, "While most likely notable, the single reference provided does not provide WP:VERIFY for the information in the article. I could have left it in mainspace, but that would have meant gutting the article, so I felt it was better moved to draft to give you a chance to add the appropriate references." If you have sources to support the information in the article, that would be ideal. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 13:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try to find more sources on the subject.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alapini Vina

Hi Alapini Vina is essentially a cut and paste copy of Eka-tantri Vina (which I reviewed) by the same creator. I’ve asked them on their talk page why we have effectively one article under two titles and not got a very coherent answer. If there’s no further editing in the next few days I think we should just redirect one to another - as they’re identical it doesn’t matter which way. Mccapra (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, first, how did you know that? Second I agree that we should give it some time to see if the editor follows through on their statement they intend to better differentiate the two instruments. Onel5969 TT me 13:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was grazing my way through the South Asia sorted feed, reviewed Eka-tantri Vina which looked surprisingly well put together. Then saw a slightly odd talk page message about material being moved around. I skipped the next article in the queue and the one after that was Alapini Vina, which was basically identical. If they weren’t almost next to each other I might not have spotted it. Mccapra (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, thanks. Couldn't figure out how I missed it. Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:JosephineWhittell.jpg

⚠
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:JosephineWhittell.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted article

Hello Onel5969 You and another editor were part of the speedy deletion process that resulted in a deletion referenced HERE.

After conversation, it was realized that this was a good faith effort and a draft version restored. I re-submitted the article, Chalk paint after I and another editor revised it. It was recently accepted. Should you like to do so, please take a look at it and I'd appreciate any advice or thoughts on the article. It is an article I'd like to follow up on as time passes. I would like to find further information about the material and keep my eye out for such. I understand the article is probably start class, but it is a start. I'm also working on the New Albion article to attempt FA status and following up on an my first list article about Francis Drake's circumnavigation. Kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gresham Life

Hello Onel5969, I wrote an answer below your comment in my talk page. Regards --Ricercastorica (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to grant my wish?

Hi Onel5969, may I please ask for a reply concerning the request on my user talk. Best wishes, --15:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OS, hi. There was no question posed. Onel5969 TT me 16:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a question, but as said a request, namely ″I'd like to ask you to please delete the drafts″, which you haven't replied yet. --OS (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&oldid=1036296812"