User talk:SportingFlyer/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michelle Davidson (actress), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doctor Doctor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Adele for deletion

There is currently a discussion taking place as to whether Portal:Adele should be deleted at MfD.
You are being notified because you were a participant in the previous nomination discussion.
Thank you, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2004 Vaughan Shooters season

Hi SportingFlyer, I'm just responding to the question you asked in the Articles for deletion/2004 Vaughan Shooters season discussion. I found reliable independent secondary sources for the 2007-2009 seasons. From that period the club was covered regularly through the various Metroland Media Group newspapers. I think that assists in making them notable. The articles could be found at their website here are some of the links.[1] [2]

Shotgun pete (talk) 3:22, 26 M

Legally defined?

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Hudson, New Jersey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Hudson, New Jersey you have mentioned the concept of 'legally defined', but have not clarified what you mean and how that relates to the discussion or what policy you are basing your claim on. You have added cited Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates but been unclear as what you are referring to. Can you please explain? Thanks Djflem (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, please, as offered, review the sources cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Hudson, New Jersey, which clearly establish the use of the term and it's definition.Djflem (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Djflem: Sorry, it was late and I thought WP:GEO linked to WP:GEOLAND, which discusses legally defined human geographies (states, counties, municipal councils) as opposed to "informal" geographies (such as North Hudson, which have to pass WP:GNG). As I've said, I've looked through the sources and I don't see anything which actually defines it as a place, informal or not - it's just WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I beg you too, open the link and make sure real info is on transport united fc page 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 truth forever https://www.facebook.com/TUFCBHUTAN/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.121.22 (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi SportingFlyer. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

North Hudson

As requested, I have provided references for your review at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Hudson, New Jersey. I expect they will satisfy your consideration to change your ivote to keep. Thanks. Djflem (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Working President

You indicated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Working President (2nd nomination) that you would give this a second look if sources were found. You might want to examine the sources I suggested in the discussion. SpinningSpark 12:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello SportingFlyer,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Western Sydney Wanderers FC NPL

Hello, SportingFlyer. The deletion of the Western Sydney Wanderers FC NPL article is fine with me. I'm happy to have the other A-League team NPL pages to be removed as soon as possible. I had discussions with Eccy89, and mentioned that I'm just taking well resourced information into one page to a new page.

Plus, the "Reserves" articles and Central Coast Mariners FC Under-25s and Academy page are already looking fantastic. I'm happy for the Reserves pages to stay, and the NPL ones to go. These NPL ones are just pointless.

FastCube (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)FastCube

A star

The Editor's Barnstar
For being a conscientious Wikipedia editor User:Lightburst 22:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh lord. I had a spelling blunder on that star! the difference between conscientious and contentious is just a few letters but the meaning is flipped 180. I appreciated your efforts and meant to give you the conscientious star! User:Lightburst 17:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Kaelin

A properly attributed block-quote is not a copyright violation. I am going to undo your edit and hope that you do not undo a properly referenced quote. Please focus elsewhere. User:Lightburst 04:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Lightburst: No, it can still be a copyright violation, especially since the copy and pasted text is from a copyrighted website. It's also bad form. What it's not is plagiarised, since it's properly attributed. I've left a note on the copyvio page for someone to take a look. SportingFlyer T·C 07:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
You have a misunderstanding of what constitutes a copyright violation. I would appreciate you not editing articles that I have started to remove properly referenced material without getting consensus. This is a big encyclopedia and there is much to do without squabbling with editors and living in contentious areas of WP. I have some articles to write. All my best to you. User:Lightburst 13:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
One again I am encouraging you to focus your attention elsewhere. I have enough to deal with on WP without having another editor engage in WP:HOUNDING. Someone else reverted your reversion on the Kaelin article I started ...thankfully. I do not wish to be in a content edit war with you. Please stop this bothersome activity. I also would like to ask you to take articles I started off of your watch list. My best to you. User:Lightburst 12:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Lightburst: I'm not WP:HOUNDING you. I did not look at the article since my last post here. The article is on my watchlist, and I saw you restored content which goes against WP:NPOV (by allowing the person to talk about themselves) in addition to being a potential copyright violation (it's non-free text.) I'm going to remove it again, and start a discussion on the talkpage. It has absolutely nothing to do with you. SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You have no email

SportingFlyer You can email me if you have questions regarding the revdel. Cannot be published. Also not much more I can do regarding Kaelin, properly referenced does not matter. The edits you made remove the scientific explanations which cannot be reworded. So I will stop editing the article and leave it to the community. Happy fourth to you! Lightburst (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000 AFD repeat

I am contacting everyone who participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 to tell you the same discussion is happening again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000. Dream Focus 12:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

ORCP

Hey there. I just wanted to note that I think it's too bad your ORCP has gotten no response. I don't know all the ins and outs of your editing record and am not really the sort that should be weighing in at ORCP but the idea of you going to RfA is reasonable. You are definitely a legitimate candidate - which is of course different from saying you'd pass - and I'm sorry no one has given you any feedback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Barkeep49: Thank you very much. I was wondering if the silence was due to some sort of character flaw or if it was because the climate's just a bit odd right now, but I really appreciate your post. SportingFlyer T·C 23:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Razak Atunwa

Hello. Please confirm why you have marked this article for deletion. Thank you. Jembola (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I've moved this to the bottom of the page, incorrectly posted at top by Jembola. I've posted guidance on their talk page, deleted a further copyright violation and asked for a COI clarification, so you don't need to reply further unless you wish to, cheer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents thread

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Setenzatsu (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Pichpich. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, The Astaka, 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.

Pichpich (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nomination

This is total nonsense. Everything you see on that page is accessible for free on the internet. The ICD-system is offered free of charge by the World Health Organisation. If my page is to be speedy-deleted, then so are all other ICD lists on Wikipedia. - Manifestation (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Bratislava Region Youth Council

Hi SportingFlyer I have reviewed the copyvio report and have included only the sourced info. Thanks! Albi the Dragon (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, nvm, some other dude just deleted it so I'll have to rewrite a draft, check it and corroborate an explanation on notability I guess. Albi the Dragon (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Maciej Kalkowski

Hello SportingFlyer,

Thank you for your recommendations for the page, Maciej Kalkowski. 7 references have been added, hopefully this is enough for it to be verifiable.

Thank you,

OLLSZCZ (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@OLLSZCZ: Looks great now as far as I can tell (I don't speak Polish.) Only problem was the article was only sourced to his two teams initially. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2019–20 Uganda Premier League (July 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at 2019–20 Uganda Premier League instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Bkissin (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, SportingFlyer! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bkissin (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited FUFA Big League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lugogo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Iraqi Premier League

Hi SportingFlyer,

First of all thanks for your response! So basically I should just mark both seasons as 'Abandoned' + a note of the disputes?

Steel Dogg (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Adam Klein (baseball)

Hi SportingFlyer, I recently saw your review of the article that I submitted and would love to get some more feedback. I noticed that several other minor league professional baseball players have Wikipedia pages with similar kinds of sources. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reese_Havens. Are there any sources in the "Adam Klein" article that would be considered "approved" by Wikipedia, so that I could possibly delete some of the content that is from the non-reliable sources and resubmit? Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. --WikiWriter135 (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @WikiWriter135: Reese Havens was drafted in the first round, received coverage in the New York Times, and was on the 40-man roster even though he never ended up playing in the big leagues, the articles are not comparable. Klein clearly fails WP:NBASE and all of the coverage of him specifically is routine coverage of an independent league team, so I don't think he would pass a deletion discussion, sorry. (Also, he never played for the Oakland Athletics, so the lead is very misleading.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @SportingFlyer: Thank you for your feedback. Are there any sources, such as the ones that highlight his statistics that would be "credible?" I also see plenty of Wikipedia articles of players that are either "stubs" or articles that just highlight the players' statistics. Would that be suitable? I guess my ultimate question is, how can I edit the page to make it be published? Thank you. --WikiWriter135 (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @WikiWriter135: honestly unless he received some sort of national coverage at some point it would be very hard for him to be notable enough for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Styles

No need to remove the styles, why don't you go check the colour clash chart! Govvy (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Govvy: There was consensus in January, and as someone colourblind myself adding colour where no colour is needed isn't good, clash chart aside. SportingFlyer T·C 21:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
There was never a consensus there were already rules in place to follow, and I am also colour blind! Govvy (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Govvy: Looks like we have a simple disagreement, then. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC

How should we proceed with the larger RfC? Were at the point where editors are just repeating their points. Krazytea(talk) 23:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Krazytea: Probably an RfC on the Village Pump, advertised across sports, with proper examples from a number of different sports (see: Detroit Tigers). I'm not sure it will pass, though. SportingFlyer T·C 05:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

On Liberty

Is it ok to cite PhilPapers authors and titles only, thanks.Arnlodg (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Arnlodg: There was nothing wrong with citing that paper - it's just the citation included a needless copy of the abstract, so I went ahead and removed it. SportingFlyer T·C 07:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hook a Crook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edwin Bryant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

Thanks, from noob

Appreciate the tip on the deletion page. Realize my mistake now. Homerseditor (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:In Chang-soo

Hi SportingFlyer, I

This source is by Seoul E-Land FC Official Website. Please use google translater. https://www.seoulelandfc.com/fanzone/news_view?b_id=57

In Chang-soo is manager of football club manager of Fully Professional League. Footwiks (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, When do you finish review of Draft:In Chang-soo

He definately meets the WP:NFOOTY

A cup of tea for you!

Thanking you for you support during my recent unsuccessful RfA. It was much appreciated, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple accounts?

Was wondering if you edit with any other accounts?--MONGO (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@MONGO: No, why? SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Guidance on overly promotional please

Thanks for your comment on the draft Shakespeare by the Lakes page. I'm not sure what I can do about it. Your comment that it is possibly notable is appreciated. I can't work out what I can do to make it seem less promotional, as I worked very hard to adopt a neutral tone and just stick with the facts. I quoted some reviewers who loved it. Should I take out the quotes? Your guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. --Cathyday (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Cathyday: No worries. My suggestions: I would take a look at Shakespeare in the Park (New York City) and model the article after that, including the history part. I'd tone down the lede paragraph a little bit - remove the people who created the company in the paragraph and focus on writing a very neutral opening paragraph describing the event, making sure everything is sourced. I'd lose the "Completed Seasons" section completely, and rewrite the reception to take the focus away on the fact it's been well reviewed - what I think is important is that the Sydney Morning Herald has reviewed it well, not that audiences and reviewers have reviewed it well. Look at the Popularity and Acclaim section of the NYC article and try to emulate that - it's going to be a bit more difficult, but I would focus more on who has been talking about the plays than what they've said, as right now it kind of reads like something on poster outside the theatre. I don't think you need to lose any of the sources, though. I hope that's helpful to you, and good luck with the article! SportingFlyer T·C 05:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @SportingFlyer: Thanks very much. These are really helpful suggestions. I'll get working on them over the weekend. I really appreciate your thorough and detailed response. Cathyday (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Request on 15:48:19, 26 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mpower2


Very useful suggestions. I will do a re-write adopting a more neutral tone and re-submit. Thank~you. Mpower2 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


Mpower2 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Information icon Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Sofia Airport. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Charles (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Heartland F.C

Hi SportingFlyer!

Here's a few things to get you started:

  • Lede
  1. The lede (or lead paragraph) needs expansion. It should be a summary of the article as a whole. You can have up to 4 paragraphs here, so no need to scrimp!
  2. Try to avoid one section sentences, such as "They play their home games at Dan Anyiam Stadium"; try Hearland F.C are based in Owerri, Imo, along with local rivals Enyimba FC and play home fixtures at the Dan Anyiam Stadium.
  3. Try to link competitions. Things like "They have reached the finals of two African continental" should say what these were!
  4. The lede should say why the team is most notable. So, after stating what it is (a Nigerian football team), the next sentence should say they were X league champions (and link the league!)
  5. Try to remove jargon - "the top flight", etc.
  • Prose
  1. Prose just means the main body (as in text, not tables or pictures, etc). The prose is the thing that would need to be mostly fixed here. I'd recommend after looking at the things, to get a copy edit from WP:GOCE for the article... It's worth the wait!
  2. The article needs to be broad. So, things people would ask about the article need to be answerable, and easily found in the prose. The first thing that I asked was, who founded the team, and when. It just says they were founded as Spartans, and that they won the league from 1987-1990. However, the next section contradicts this (says they were renamed in 1985)
  3. The biggest issue with this article is a culmination of poor prose and proseline. I would recommend creating larger paragraphs (I'm currently working through an article on 1985 World Snooker Championship that is full of large paragraphs, which are the size I would need.
  • Other comments
  1. Are not all of the players notable? Surely they all are and should be redlinked.
  2. The best way to explain sources, is that everything you write is sourced. If you make a statement, it needs to have a source that responds to that. Some things on here aren't sourced. Don't worry about removing something small... If it isn't cited, you can remove without any issues whatsoever!


I hope some of this is helpful. I'll take a look through your sources and fix a few issues. I really recommend the GA process, and I think more articles should go through it. Drop me a ping if you have any issues, or want some more help (and/if you complete the above). Have a great day! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Lee Vilenski: Thank you, this is really helpful! I've added a lot of content to football club pages over the months but this is a great structure. It's already taken a bit of work to get the article where it is. I'll take my time and work on it - when it's ready, may I ping you to reassess the quality? Not looking for a GA - I'm typically more interested in getting the information on the page in a good, structured format - but that doesn't mean I don't want what I work on to be as good as possible. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, absolutely. There are some formatting things that some people don't know about, but I'm more than happy to take a look for you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Elite Pro Academy

Hi, I noticed that you put notability tag in Elite Pro Academy page. How to remove that? Is there any hint that I can do to improve it? Wira rhea (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Wira rhea: The problem with the article is it relies heavily on primary sources (the PSSI official website) - probably should have tagged it with that as well. If you can find a couple newspaper articles talking about the academy, please add them to the article. Let me know if you have any other questions! SportingFlyer T·C 03:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Regards Wira rhea (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment in DelRev

Regarding your comment in the deletion review, we can certainly discuss the option of userfying at Wikipedia talk:Multiple sources, and if indeed the discussion establishes a consensus that the essay needs to be userfied, we can do that. Banana Republic (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Banana Republic: Actually really appreciate you replying to me on my talk page to not have the DRV go off on a large tangent. Will set up a discussion soon. SportingFlyer T·C 17:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

What you might want to consider is that having it in your userspace gives you more control over the content. With my essay, I've reverted changes people have made, and pushed back on other changes people have suggested on the talk page. I get to do that because it's in my userspace. People can take it or leave it, but it's what I alone want to say on the subject. In a public space like WP, you're at the mercy of anybody coming along and editing it, and you won't be able to push back so hard. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not interested in having "control over the content". The reason Wikipedia is such a great resource is that many editors help improve articles. Usually each editor makes only minor contributions resulting in something that is greater than the sum of the individual parts. I would absolutely welcome other editors to improve that essay. Banana Republic (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello SportingFlyer,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the kind words at my RfA. I just hope that when you see my name now you don't go "I can't believe I supported that SOB" :). I look forward to our paths crossing, as they have in several different places, again soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Congratulations on your successful RfA. I have a feeling I won't be unhappy I supported you. Good luck with the mop. SportingFlyer T·C 03:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

A note about a recent AfC

Hi SportingFlyer. Thanks for the work you do with AfC. I just wanted to drop you a note and let you know that you accepted a draft from User:Wetolo that has now been deleted as a hoax. I noticed in their other edits that they were referencing sources that didn't exist (fabricating references). I happened to check the now-deleted article for the purported footballer "Harrison McCartney" and noticed they did the same thing there, and it seems that person does not exist. Thought I'd let you know (though hopefully this is a rare occurrence that someone would be so dedicated to vandalism). Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Enwebb: Thank you for letting me know and for cleaning it up, I'm sorry for accepting it! Do you remember, was this the article which claimed he had played for Manchester United back in the 19th century? I was going through football AfCs in bulk that day reasonably quickly (most of them are created by only two or three accounts so you fall into a pattern in what you're looking for) and don't think I checked sources for that one since they were both offline. Will be more careful in the future. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Don't feel too bad, they were very convincing fake sources. I wouldn't have caught it but for their eye-popping claims on an article I watch. Both the purported references were offline/unlinked, but running an exact google search on the titles had no results for any of the three sources used. I'd expect to see at least something on Google Books, WorldCat, or Amazon. And yes, it was a biography about a footballer who played for Man U in the 19th/early 20th centuries. It was quite the effort from the editor! Enwebb (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Drafts of Das osmnezz

I know you're active at AFC and have dealt with this editor's submissions quite a lot. I'm concerned about the number they are creating which are non-notable and have little chance of becoming notable. There are also language and sourcing issues. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 14:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @GiantSnowman: On the whole, I agree with you, but my bigger concern is the poor state of the lede and prose in most of these articles. I only accept those which clearly pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, and I refuse to spend time figuring out if the player passes either unless they're clear in the prose. Having a one-sentence article with 20 references doesn't really help the project, I'd much rather get them to focus on developing the articles they're creating as opposed to bulk-creating articles, since they do find sources for articles relatively well. The bigger problem I'm having at AfC is with articles like Draft:1992 Belgian Super Cup (notable, but not properly sourced, and there are several Belgian Super Cup articles like these currently up for review) and Draft:Dexter Walker (footballer) (technically passes WP:NFOOTY, but the source quality is poor, and there are several St. Vincent draft articles exactly like these currently up for review.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. What's the ratio of acceptable to unacceptable (ie non-notable and/or poorly written) drafts? GiantSnowman 13:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: I don't think any of the articles are anything more than stubs, though they hopefully should be expandable with the references provided. Draft:Roger Vaaler and Draft:Fredrik_Bryngelsson clearly notable IMO, but someone like Draft:Dino Mennillo could be but it's not clear if he is from the article. Three is a terrible sample size, but all three need cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 19:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Maradu apartments demolition order

Thanks for the copyright check. The first edit you made was an excerpt from an Indian Law which was quoted in the article. An Indian law does not have copyright. The second section you removed were copyright violations. I have addressed those issues and reentered the information. Thanks again. --Drajay1976 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Europe_Elects

Hi, I added another source to the article Draft:Europe_Elects. I think, it is okay by now. Further sources are shown at the talk of the article. Could you please recheck and publish the article? Thank you for your efforts.Stubenviech (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Stubenviech: Hi mate, there are still not enough reliable sources in the article for it to be accepted. SportingFlyer T·C 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for coming back. Could you please have a look at the Talk of Europe Elects? I posted a link there, that shows many citations of Europe Elects. Which one should I choose? Thank you for your efforts. Stubenviech (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I added another source and tried again. It is from Saint Mary's University (Halifax). Are there an obstacles left, or can it finally get published?--Stubenviech (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Stubenviech: No, it's still not enough - that source is not necessarily independent enough of the topic (a university reporting on an alumnus) to help it get past WP:NORG. Has it been talked about in any newspapers? SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer:Thank you for coming back to me. I think one smaller source from a university and seven international sources with own articles are fair, aren´t they? What else could be done?--Stubenviech (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Stubenviech: No, the sources in the article are not okay - at least three of the sources do not mention Europe Elects at all. You need to find sources which are independent of Europe Elects which cover Europe Elects significantly per WP:GNG. It's not enough to be quoted for a statistical projection they put out, though the Italian-language article may be okay. Your goal should be every sentence in the article is supported by a reliable secondary source since we report on what others have said about organisations, but right now it is written like it has been published by the organisation itself. SportingFlyer T·C 10:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Use of old HTML tags

Hello! I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I tweaked your comment at WP:Requests for adminship/Greenman per WP:LINT. Specifically, I removed <strike>...</strike> because it's an obsolete HTML tag, and <s>...</s> replaced it. Obsolete HTML tags run the risk of creating readability issues in the near future when old HTML tags get retired from MediaWiki, so editors are trying to fix formatting issues whenever possible. Cheers! OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @OhKayeSierra: Cheers - serves me right for learning HTML4 :D - will not make that mistake going forward. SportingFlyer T·C 03:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

numbers and arguments

I don't want to add to a loaded talk page, Greenman: I see a big difference between a COI and an unfounded allegatin of COI. If I had been in the group, I'd ow go and apologize. We shouldn't just look at numbers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Gerda Arendt: I know it's not just a numbers thing. Counting through, there's still a severe number of opposes, myself included, which discount or ignore the COI when making our decision, along with some moral/weak supports. The only question in my mind is whether Greenman as a long term contributor qualifies for the "crat chat" given the new consensus, and I believe that's a judgment call in this case. As someone statistically minded, finding a consensus here to grant admin rights would indeed be historic. I just wanted to add a bit of support for someone who I believe made a difficult decision. I completely understand if you disagree. SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I only asked her why, without blaming. There were reasonable opposes, but no more than 30%. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I know. I don't think I've cast blame anywhere, hopefully, please let me know if you think I have, was never any intent to do so. Also, digging into the numbers more, I count about a dozen oppose votes which oppose solely on COI grounds; assuming none of the support !votes are downweighted (a couple weak supports, a couple moral supports who didn't go back and strike), that gets you at right around the 65%-66% mark. The vast majority of the opposes, myself included, didn't oppose just on the COI alone. SportingFlyer T·C 13:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I think we have a misunderstanding, sorry about that, English is not my first language. You said on her talk "but just want to lend my support - I think your close was proper." - as if someone - possibly I - found it not proper, - while I didn't suggest that, just wanted a reason which was missing. I also found the writing on the candidate's page a bit - how shall I say it without being misunderstood again - a bit cold. I am not an admin nor crat, and never want to be one, but would hope to be able to offer some words of encouragement in such a case. - Anyway, I've seen RfAs that were a bloodbath, and this one was not, and we all will survive if things stay as they are. (I was out, and haven't looked yet, just responded to your ping.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: No worries :) Given the words on their talk page, I simply wanted to encourage DQ, as I thought they had acted correctly. I understand why you would think some of the language a bit cold at the RfA, too. I need to go encourage the candidate as well! SportingFlyer T·C 00:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
That's a good idea, thank you! I wonder what we can do to prevent the label COI sticking with him. I know how it feels to be branded unfairly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Confusion

How is this page promotion of product[[3]]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnaf guy123 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Fnaf guy123: It crystal clear violates WP:PROMO. The three sources are the company's own page, the company's Patreon account, and the company's Steam page, and is clearly written in a way to advertise an upcoming product. SportingFlyer T·C 20:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok sorry about that I didn't mean to brake that rule. So I hope to remove them as soon as possible. Thanks for letting me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnaf guy123 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kellen Gordon

Didn't want to clutter up the AfD, but I did post a notice at the RU page, neutrally of course. Depending on the outcome of this AfD, if the league is judged as not notable, I have a bit of clean-up to do. The editor who created this article has been systematically creating stubs for every player in that league over the last 30 or so days (in fact they've got another one out today). I've been reviewing them and basing my reviews on the methodology I state in the AfD. This is a new user, with a seemingly sole focus on American RU articles. They also don't really engage in discussion on their talk page. If we get a negative response from the project regarding this league, I'll slog through all those articles and create redirects. Regardless, thanks for all you do on WP. Onel5969 TT me 12:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Onel5969: That was the first one I reviewed - I started focusing solely on football articles at NPP per a post on the WikiProject football page and stumbled upon it. I admittedly didn't check to see if the league was fully professional and did a straight WP:GNG check when I prodded it and was surprised to see the league on the list (some sources confirm it's fully professional, but I'm really not sure what that means in this instance - I don't follow rugby that closely, but I do check the Toronto Wolfpack scores relatively frequently and was surprised there was a league in the US.) I'm not sure any of these players are notable, unfortunately, but we'll see. SportingFlyer T·C 12:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Portal stuff

Hi SF: I saw your input at the MfD discussion for Portal:Australian rules football. It's hard to improve portals when many are for their deletion, but at least the improvements you made to it were not reverted. In the recent past, I had updated several portals in various manners, such as using transclusions for content, and one user went by and erased the months of work and hours of research I performed in a frenzy of drive-by rapid reversions, one after another, all in one day. See the "Recent portal matters" section on my user page for detailed information (perm link). So much for improving Wikipedia. North America1000 20:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello SportingFlyer,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 816 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

New message from Northamerica1000

Hello, SportingFlyer. You have new messages at Portal talk:Australia.
Message added 20:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America1000 20:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Lightburst

Hey, I noticed your promptly-blanked question on LB's talk page. The guy has been bother me too a lot recently, in case you hadn't noticed, and I suspect he's been in email contact with a bunch of random users who have conflicted with me in the past or who just happen to be "inclusionists" like him. The worst part is that he and I had agreed to a voluntary mutual IBAN, which he has apparently chosen to just "forget about" of late.

I honestly don't know what there is to do about it at this point. Even though the recent incidents have been entirely one-way, taking it to ANI would likely result in the peanut gallery immediately shouting IBAN as though that would solve anything (in my experience two-way IBANs in cases of one-way harassment always make the problem worse in the long-run). I suppose if you and I filed a shared complaint, or you asked El C to look into it (I think El C might still be sick of me asking them to deal with this), it might be more effective?

Either way, your thoughts on the matter would be most appreciated.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Hijiri88: Honestly, I woke up one morning to see this user had voted against me on a number of AfDs, and when checking their contribution log the pattern he voted in seemed a bit suspicious. I recently took an article he had improved to DRV, but it really had nothing to do with him - I typically have a lot of time for users who improve articles at AfDs as long as the sources found demonstrate notability, and the only issue with that DRV is the notability fell into the WP:NOTNEWS category pretty clearly, not with any of the actual improvement of the article itself. I thought I'd ask to see if there was anything untoward, saw I got blanked shortly thereafter, but also saw they had moved on to other AfDs. I classified it as a minor nuisance and moved on, as there's been a fair few things I've taken to AfD recently which are razor thin notable at best that I've been wrong on the user hasn't been involved with, and I'm simply trying to help out with the NPP backlog/point out articles where the sourcing's non-existent.

None of that, of course, helps you. I agree with your assessment ANI's probably not that smart of an idea, especially because you don't have any sort of definitive proof. My two suggestions would be to do your best to just let this go, though you may still want to note the voluntary IBAN on the MfD page - or, barring that, get in touch with an administrator by email to see if any alternative options exist. I'm sorry you are getting attacked for what seems to be a very straightforward request. SportingFlyer T·C 03:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Offer of assistance

Could you help me get to the bottom of WP:N(E) for the FL Rave scene and whether it should be called Summer of love or something else? I don't know if I need the Reliable sources notice board or Dispute resolution at this point. Thanks Johnvr4 (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Johnvr4: I honestly don't think there's a dispute here, as if you can create an article which passes the notability guidelines, everything's solved. I think the reliable sources noticeboard's a good idea, but the users reviewing there will be looking to see if the source is reliable, not whether the content within the source is notable. Also, based on a couple of your previous posts, it's really helpful to those reviewing if you could be more concise - for instance, WP:THREE isn't policy, but it's a widely respected essay. I would recommend submitting a draft to Articles for Creation, where it will be peer reviewed - this can be frustrating if it's not accepted, but it should be a peer review process. In terms of the article's name, look at WP:COMMONNAME. What do your sources call the event? SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer:, I've been purchasing and reading new sources-books on the subject. Given the previous sources and the substance within them, I've asked what you would call an entry on the era per Commoname. Some of the music content will go into Florida breaks but any existing subject on WP could not possibly cover the topic(s). Thanks again, Johnvr4 (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Johnvr4: I still don't know. You've identified plenty of sources which talk about Orlando music in the early 90's. I think lots of these can be used in The Beacham article, I think there may be an AAHZ article (AAMZ? may have that acronym slightly wrong), but I don't think any of them support an article called "Orlando's Summer of Love." My advice would be to look at existing rave articles, see if there's any of these for any other scenes and go for there. SportingFlyer T·C 23:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: As you can see, the era 88-98 in Orlando was notable for the development of electronica in Florida, nationally, internationally. Per the sources, the word "Rave" was considered passe and is to be avoided as much as possible in an article on Orlando. "Rave" carried negative connotations very early in Orlando- and even legal consequences. Sources indicate these events were held in nightclubs so clubbing may be more appropriate.
I've looked at the WP articles for Summer of Love, Second Summer of Love, Madchester and Music of Seattle. Did you have another article in mind as a model? A Seattle music-sized article is going to be way too big of a topic for me to write. I wrote the majority of Beacham Theatre where Aahz is covered (see #cultural significance) and most of Florida breaks. I'm not sure that I need to be the editor who writes another similar one--Is this SPA? Also, these events are apparently still ongoing and I do not want to write any promotion type piece. All of these articles and topics have WP:OTHERNAMES and there are sources for each name but another editor claimed it was OR to mention them together. I am open to any title or Namechange... or WP:DESCRIPDIS (#4) Descriptive title: where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary.
"Aahz" is correct for the 88-92 and a period in 93-94 but a newly purchased book and now main source calls it "Oz" or "Aaaahz" (and Dekko's). I don't think Aahz is an acronym. It may be either a play on "Awe" or The Land of Oz. A lot of this topic will not fit in those two articles. The Beacham did not have electronic music and wasn't even called Aahz for much (or most) of this period. Any section under this topic would have to cover at least 5 other notable Orlando places covered by the sources that had nothing to do with the Beacham. Florida breaks would not cover it because in the sources there are two very distinctly separate types of FL breaks--the progressive breaks/"intelligent" breaks and the less cerebral "funky breaks" as well as other notable Orlando scenes such as Drum and Bass that were also internationally influential (see also AK1200--another Aahz influence). I'm not sure any one name is going to in every single source--if that is the requirement. I just picked Orlando Summer of Love. I was never married to that title.
At AN, It was claimed that I didn't offer any sources that were considered adequate.
At DRV, It was claimed that the sources haven't convinced anyone to modify the AFD close, mostly due to e.g concerns that there is not enough substance in the mentioned sources".
Given the sources for the era, I don't think any reasonable person could come to this conclusion but a whole bunch did anyway--and these eds were not referring to sources for the title either. With the sources reviewed at AFD and DRV and AN linked above, are such "concerns" valid? Wherever your answer, how does one challenge those determinations without going back to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case? It would be pretty dumb to spend any amount of time or effort writing a new article if a stack of admins are going to pre-thwart it with already made, voted on, and upheld false claims that the era fails GNG. Please advise and thank you in advance. Johnvr4 (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Johnvr4: Considering you've already been blocked for all of this, here's what I would do: write a new article based off the Music in Seattle article. Call it "Music of Orlando" to start, though that's likely a bit too broad. But compare "Orlando's Summer of Love" to "Madchester", the latter of which is absolutely a term describing a very specific genre of music, the former of which isn't notable enough to support an article. Your next step: Do write a draft of the article without using any long quotes. Do not go back to ANI or arbitration for this, you'll likely just be blocked again, you have to understand there were major issues with that article and no amount of wikilawyering is going to convince anyone otherwise. Also understand there's a chance the article may not ultimately be notable. Write the draft anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, I know you are trying to help and I will not argue with you. However, I do not think there is any WP policy that requires prose to prove GNG. If there was such a policy, an editor would have simply pointed me to it by now and that would be the end of it--instead of blocking me for demanding the policy basis for such assertions. If their assertions violate an existing WP policy, I don't think that it is wikilawyering to point it out. The fact there is a WP policy to support my assertion and that no editor has pointed to any policy to support their assertions should be convincing enough. My intent stated-over two years ago and repeatedly since was clear.
Back to the topic, Music of Orlando (Orlando includes nearly all of Central Florida) or even Music of Florida (since there was a state-wide scene after '92) would be too much to cover. These sources that define a notable ten-year period but don't have a name for it. Various sources describe certain periods and the evolution of "The Orlando Sound." As you would seem to agree the Seattle model suggestion appears way too broad and I wouldn't comfortable starting it. What these sources cover is a ten-year period in Orlando which would give incredible weight to just these ten years and Orlando if put elsewhere. There are enough reliable sources to make the electronic music scene in Orlando notable by itself and enough content in those sources for tons of expansion. Rolling Stone's 6-page article on the Orlando scene proves GNG of this scene by itself as do the sources that mention that article (no need to wikilawyer that fact). There is no chance this topic could ever fail GNG and if there is any chance that it might, I'd like very much to clear that up first whether at AN or ANI or RFC or RSN--I just don't know where or how.
If you look again at Madchester, (and that talk page) there is a lot of debate about the "very specific genre of music" and/or time period. The Orlando scene very much relates to Madchester but it's just not that great of an article to model from. If you look at the sources I've used for this time period in Orlando, the scene also relates to a very specific genre of music: Florida breaks. Per the sources, The Prog breaks of FL and the funky breaks of Florida are both known as Florida breaks. If it was not already clear, I intend to use these sources to clarify that further in developing FL breaks but in the interim, I could shoot you a quote from a source if it would help in understanding the relationship between the topics. I thought the Orlando scene and the FL Breaks genre needed to be separate given their distinct influences (funky breaks was Miami bass influenced) Progressive breaks were initially UK influenced. Perhaps I am wrong but there's also a lot of genre overlap. At an early time in the evolution of the music, the various genres didn't always have distinct names yet. Thanks for the help and suggestion. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Johnvr4: Well, you were blocked mostly because you failed to listen. As you know the article you were trying to save was one (or two?) sentence(s) with a ton of long quotes, and though you say prose shouldn't need to demonstrate WP:GNG, I can tell you it wasn't clear to anyone what that article should have been about. That being said, the beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that you can save notable articles even if they're deleted just by writing a better article, and I think you have more than enough to write an article on the Orlando electronic scene of the late 80's and early 90's. Write a draft - again, you can use an article name as a place holder - and when you're ready I will give you my opinion on what the article's name should be. SportingFlyer T·C 02:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer:, No, I was blocked because I refused go along with a bunch of (or any) admins that pushed their assertions that GNG needs to be proved in prose rather than by the mere existence of reliable sources on the subject and upheld them with a vote. But, I promised not to argue with you.
Yes, I do say prose shouldn't need to demonstrate WP:GNG and I still refuse to acknowledge that GNG has anything to do with prose, articles, or sourcing in the article and have cited and quoted the WP policies that clearly state this fact. The WP policy already has consensus. No amount of admins can overrule the WP policy unless they have enough consensus to change the policy. WP:GNG is presumed when reliable sources already exist or might someday exist (NPOSSIBLE). Surely we can agree this is WP policy?
It is obvious to you and I that, I have more than enough sources to write an article on the notable Orlando electronic scene of the late 80's and early 90's. However, the admins at RfU, AfD, DRV, AN have ruled that I did not. So, why wouldn't I not challenge their findings with these ironclad sources on the subject?
Those editors upheld that: the topic was just made up despite the eight(?) sources put there after the merge suggestion or at DRV; was not a notable despite the existing sources; not a thing despite the wikilink with "the thing" it was and other asinine "concerns" I had to spent a ton of time and space arguing against.
I never said that stub was good. I said, here is the WP policy guidance and "per all the sources available, the era in Orlando was notable and it should be called something" I chose that title and provided the sourcing for it. Don't like it? Change the name. You will note, An article name as a place holder and talk page is what got the stub article on a notable subject deleted (in the midst of a merge).
The reality is that perhaps it wasn't clear to anyone because few (or none) of those lazy editors actually read the argument--especially the one whose assertion was given merit by the closer. The community agreed to local consensus with a vote. I agreed with WP's GNG policy. That's it.
The closest thing of the marketing-given name like Madchester is "The Orlando Sound". I think I'm going to look at the sources to differentiate the North Fl and Orlando Sound, of Beacham, Firestone, Southern Nights, Simons, from South FL Funky breaks of Edge, Abyss, Cyberzone, Tampa for at Florida breaks, when that gets too big, it can split to a new one. (forgot to sign Johnvr4 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC))
@SportingFlyer:, for Florida breaks Funky breaks/ Orlando Sound, I found this bit to differentiate the roots of Progressive house / (US-termed) Intelligent dance music from from the funky influence of Miami Bass. Hi-NRG/ Eurodisco compared to regular disco music, was devoid of "funkiness."[2] Johnvr4 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Johnvr4: I'm not quite sure what you're trying to show there, to be honest, as there's no source attached - I'm not all that familiar with music articles, but I'm more than happy to help review whatever draft you wrote, or to tell you if I think a source is reliable, but I can't really help draft the article. If I'm missing something and you'd like me to be reviewing something specifically please let me know. In terms of whether the Orlando scene is/was notable, I hope you can put the DRV thing behind you. You'll notice I agreed the article should not be restored. I don't necessarily agree WP:GNG can be shown without requiring prose - I can't claim something is notable by starting a page for it and only including 10 WP:GNG-passing references, for example. If I came across something like that at NPP, I would probably move that article to draft space. Your instance was not helped by the fact that the "Summer of Love" seemed, when looking at the sources, to be a very poorly-defined event. I know you'll probably disagree with me on that but again I'm not trying to get into an argument (nor do I mind you explaining yourself here as I'm not taking any of it personally) - I'm doing my best to explain to you how I viewed the situation ("Summer of Love"->not notable; Orlando 80s/90s music scene->likely notable; are they the same thing-> I think you'd argue yes, but it's absolutely unclear from what I've seen) and want to try and help you get an article up which everyone will agree is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 08:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Thank you very much for the thoughtful reply. Apologies for the missing source. I tried to quote wikipedia to show you a bit of background... Hi-NRG has sources that show how funky disco died out and the funkiless euro disco influenced prog house. The funky of Miami bass was brought back in forming funky florida breaks.

I am not really familiar with music genre articles either. I'm more of a history guy. I guess I can read music genre sources as good as anyone.

Thank you for allowing me to explain myself here. Please understand, I can put the DRV thing behind me but... I prefer writing on WMD history in Okinawa but now I am topic banned for Japan and Weapons because of one admins inability to see single words from my prose in the cited sources. Because of this absurdity, this particular admin spent a ton of time removing my sourced content for meritless reasons and edit wars ensured when I would not allow it- see my talk page for the diffs. This same editor falsely claimed the Summer Of Love topic was made up because of his previously demonstrated inability to find single words in a source--despite quotes and citations to sources and endless (really endless) discussions. Over half my talk page is that admins BS and after he got my sandbox draft deleted- literally by lying at Mfd and DRV, (he claimed it was stale literally 1.5 hours after my last edit that addressed old concerns!)- then came back after the fact and admitted it!!

My other blocks were from stopping Admins from reinserting copy violations from a fringe website literally for years--and you will note 'some of the same names. So what was the result of that discovery and me finally showing the community what these eds had inserting into article and edit warring over literally hundreds or thousands of times over the years? The involved eds went to RSN, lied about the content of the source, and got the source deemed unreliable. That is the type of crap I get blocked for and it creates beef with those who cause it. I do agree that my instance was not helped by the fact that the article title "Summer of Love" was only mentioned in two of the sources. The title issue- per policy, as I argued previously, should not have resulted in deletion because the era and scene were notable. But lets forget the title-- unless in the event that we don't find anything better. The will sources show even one death in that scene was notable but there are tons of reliable sources for a whole decade that far exceed the coverage criteria of a GNG test. I believe I've located the majority of the sources on the subject if you would like to peek at or review them. There's about 40 now with a mix of half local and half non-local sources. A handful of sources from the same authors and time periods will need to be merged and I tried to keep those grouped together. User:Johnvr4/sandbox52#List_of_existing_sources_for_Orlando_dance_music_scene

Question: In terms of whether the Orlando scene is/was notable...Can we please agree to the text of the GNG policy and the WP:ARTN/WP:CONTN polcies within it? They state, Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article...Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. This policy guidance is a apparently a very large if not the largest part of the DRV dispute.

Any disagreement with that policy is always going to be meritless-that's the great thing about Wikipedia. I don't need to argue why the policy has merit. I did anyway. The policy already has consensus and no amount of local consensus can overrule. Eds list sources to demonstrate notability in RfU and DRV requests all the time and it's not a problem there.

Since no obvious new title pops out at us, it was my suggestion to avoid the dispute by putting all of the content under Florida breaks (since GNG is already established). I am leaning towards eventually defining the separate parts of FL breaks music genre (Prog/intelligent breaks from the funky) and the Breaks genre from Central Florida scene if we can find a name (which was more than the one genre). Do you think this a good short term/long term idea or no? Thanks again Johnvr4 (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

One last thought, on "10 WP:GNG-passing references..." if the ten are not relevant to the subject, it is is WP:NOTEBOMB. If they are relevant to the subject that is a WP:CITEBOMB. For Citebomb, The existence of reliable sources about the subject does demonstrate GNG. Unfortunately both links for these very different WP policy concepts currently point to Notebomb. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Testing signature...

Hi SportingFlyer,

I liked your signature, so decided to copy the coding, but for some reason, my Talk page "T" link isn't a link. I've checked my wiki formatting and can't find where the error was, so thought I'd post a test here and see if you wanted to take a look at it?

Coding was: <code>[[User:Dmehus|'''Doug Mehus''']]''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:Dmehus|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/Dmehus|C]]</span>''</code>

--Doug MehusT·C 00:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hrm, now it's working! When I posted on my talk page, which I'd since reverted, the "T" wasn't a hyperlink! Doug MehusT·C 00:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Doh! I know why! I was on my Talk page, so of course my Talk page link was blacked out and bolded. You can ignore this reply. Doug MehusT·C 00:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Ergh, what's the code to insert Courier/Courier New coding? --Doug MehusT·C 00:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
And, by chance, do you know what the signature character limit is? I was hoping to add a third link to my AfD stats and, if there was room, maybe either an email link or a link to my user rights? But, alas, it seems like that's the limit of our signatures already. Doug MehusT·C 00:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Testing signature again...testing, 1, 2, 3... Doug Mehus T·C 00:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding AFD

Question regarding AFD
I would love your feedback regarding a few articles I have written. Also, I would like your help with AFD. Keep doing great work! 2kxericthomas (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Portal guideline workshop

Hi there. I'm taking it upon myself to try to moderate a discussion among Portal power users with the intention of creating a draft guideline for Portals, and I'd like to invite you to join this discussion. If you're interested, please join the discussion at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| [comment] || 02:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Scottywong: While I greatly appreciate your invite, I have no desire to participate only because I'm tired of the conflict, and I don't trust the users invited to contribute to a constructive process. SportingFlyer T·C 04:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • No worries, thanks for letting me know. Honestly, I can't blame you. Feel free to keep an eye on the discussions and chime in if you change your mind later. ‑Scottywong| [babble] || 05:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Ulster Senior Club Football Championship

Hi SportingFlyer!

Could you please review 2019 Ulster Senior Club Football Championship for transfer from draftspace to Article? This is an ongoing competition, full of match reports and citations.SportsAficionado (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct in portal space and portal deletion discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Placenames

Hallo, I see that you moved Pac (village) into mainspace from AfC. I've moved it to Pac, Albania as per WP:PLACEDAB. I don't think we use "(village)", "(town)" etc unless we have a clash of several entitities in the same place. I don't know to what extent AfC is supposed to include checking whether an article has the correct title, but it would seem to be useful to do so when the creating editor hasn't got it quite right. Happy Editing. PamD 17:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @PamD: Makes sense, thank you for the move - AfC does have the ability to easily rename articles which are about to be moved, but I think I missed this as I was focusing on WP:V and making sure there were no other geographical conflicts. SportingFlyer T·C 02:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Croatia

Hello SportingFlyer: The Croatia portal would benefit from the addition of more selected biographies. I added more GA-class articles to the recognized content section to balance it out a bit more in terms of topical diversity. I'm on wiki-break and off to vacation, so I won't be adding to the portal any more for a while. Fact is, I may not add more to it afterward either, simply because I may move entirely onward away from portals. Time will tell. See the post I just left at the portal's talk page for more information.

Ideas for FA- and GA-class biographical articles can be found at these Wikipedia Release Version Tools pages:

– North America1000 07:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Northamerica1000: No worries, there's more I want to add to that portal as well so will take a closer look at adding more biographies. Most were of historical men last I checked. Have a good wikibreak. SportingFlyer T·C 09:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the nice reply. I recommend adding a list of any articles added to the portal to its talk page. I have already posted a list there of articles presently in the portal. North America1000 11:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Evidence

Hey, I have my own commentary that I could add to your evidence table, but I refrained from doing so because it had your signature attached. But then this happened. I considered reverting, but then figured it would be better to ask your opinion on the matter first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping an administrator would go in and check the deleted versions, not have the table be open to whoever wants to edit. I'll fix the table now. SportingFlyer T·C 05:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

NRL rugby

I have thought about what you have been saying about the NRL players' notability and I actually think your removing of the NRL from that list was the correct thing to do. There clearly wasn't any discussion. Thanks for your help. ElAhrairah inspect damage⁄berate 15:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

Portal:Croatia/Contributing...plus some other changes at Portal:Croatia/Indices.....feel free to revert.--Moxy 🍁 03:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Not at all, thanks for working on it! SportingFlyer T·C 03:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your spirited defense, and knowledge of, Wikipedia's Notability policies, particularly at the Erica C. Barnett deletion discussion. You and administrator Chetsford have been around here for a Coon's age and really understand the difference between GNG and SNGs. I'm surprised you're not an administrator, but maybe, like S Marshall, you don't want to go through the "ritual hazing" that is RfA. Doug Mehus T·C 03:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Request on 19:01:32, 25 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Bradley Wurth


Hello, I read your review on my draft page, could you elaborate on what might need fixing up or adding? I've considered its the driver list as most of it is not properly sourced. How could something be properly verified exactly? Bradley Wurth (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Bradley Wurth: To be honest, I'm just looking at notability, ie whether something has been noticed in secondary sources enough to qualify for a wikipedia article. I'm not that concerned about all of those primary sources you mention, though someone else might be - I just need to see enough reliable secondary sources in the article to show it qualifies for mainspace. A good example would be articles from reliable newspapers. SportingFlyer T·C 02:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


@SportingFlyer: I can try and find some more outside references but it might be hard, it's not exactly covered largely by other motorsport sites that much, thanks though!

Draft:Third Football League of Kosovo

Hello!

I understand that Wikipedia needs reliable and plausible sources/informations, but believe me the league actually does exist. Please understand that I forgot to put the other sources on the page. So apologize for the inconveniences. LK1997AAB (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @LK1997AAB: No worries, it was up for submission so I declined it. If you have other sources add them and re-nominate and I'll let you know what I think. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

2020 Down football season

Hello SportingFlyer, I've added some changes to the Draft:2020 Down football season article. Can you take a look and move it from the draft space if it meets the standards? Many thanks.

  • @Decky: that's better, I think it's probably notable enough now to pass AfD but some of the sources aren't on Down specifically though, and I wish there were a bit more prose though I understand the season hasn't started. SportingFlyer T·C 21:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

2019-20 Utah Valley Men's Basketball Season

Just wanted to inform you that I re-submitted the draft for this article, which you declined late last week.

I added numerous sources, as well as changed the prose a bit to not be so identical to the 2018-19 page. I am curious, though - because these articles are essentially condensed overviews of college basketball seasons, does it matter that prose and layout are similar? If you look through the other Utah Valley men's basketball season articles (dating back to the 2011-12 season), you can see that there are a lot of similarities, and a lot fewer cited sources that what I've put forward.

As a new contributor to Wikipedia, perhaps I'm missing a few things here. I'm curious what specific suggestions you'd have for an article like this one. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianmhazel (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Ianmhazel: There's nothing wrong with the prose and layout being similar. I look for two things when accepting: is there any prose? If not, it likely violates our WP:NOTSTATS requirement. Also, are there any secondary references? If not, the article isn't properly sourced. Many of these articles are only sourced to the school's athletics website, and there needs to be secondary references in order to demonstrate the season was notable enough for a standalone article. These can be season previews - this is a quality example, but that article also has more than enough coverage for me to accept the article. Hope that helps, let me know if you have any other questions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

ANI where I mentioned you

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Lera Loeb. I mentioned you in relation to an AfD you participated in but was not suggesting you did anything wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised you weren't already notified considering you were the one who opened the AfD that the editor who opened the thread seems to be strongly criticising and also seems to be suggesting is part of gaming the system, but whatever I guess..... Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: Thanks for letting me know. It's a bit frustrating - probably by far and away the least notable article I've ever seen kept on Wikipedia - but I don't like individually notifying others of the AfD because of canvassing concerns, and the closing administrator didn't specifically select list at AfD. To be fair, I also did not expect to be the only user to !vote delete, but there's no bad faith here I don't think, just a failure of the system. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
You're under no obligation to take any action on this post, but if you were looking for a good reason why you should have reached out to me, you may find it (albeit at length) here. I've conceded the battle, but you may find it an interesting read in a year or so when one of us can finally get back to an afd for the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@TomStar81: My problem here is you insinuate I erred in failing to notify the people in the DRV of the AfD, which I was under absolutely no obligation to do. I'd like to remind you WP:RENOM is an essay and not settled, so you'd be welcome to try again when you're ready. SportingFlyer T·C 02:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I would love to, but it wouldn't be read as an honest afd, it would be read as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point because of a perceived (and in this case rightly so) axe to grind against more than a few people who I personally feel catastrophically $%#@ this up. That combined with the closeness of the last afd would kill any chance the new one had to run to conclusion (in fact it would probably kill the afd within an hour of its being opened), and risks my involvement on the receiving end of an ARBCOM case, or worse another nuclear strike by T&S for "Harassment" such as occurred with Fram. Like I said, I'm out: I lost the battle, and since we apparently have differing opinions and interpretations on what "leaving no man behind" means I got shut out. I'm not willing to go back in if no one has my back. It'll be someone else's job to put this altogether at an afd (or less likely at AN/I or Arbcom or someplace of that nature) and run with it as best they can. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Margaret Boden (artist) has been accepted

Margaret Boden (artist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SportingFlyer T·C 13:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this ok ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hensingham_ARLFC# is this page look it ok. How do I improve it. RDgooner (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I made the second page by mistake. What should I do ? I don't want band from wiki. RDgooner (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I made the second page by mistake, what will happen with my draft. And I don't want band from wiki. RDgooner (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @RDgooner: I will tag the draft as a duplicate and it will go away without any fuss. SportingFlyer T·C 01:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I was getting a bit worried thinking I done wrong. It took ages making it and I fort it would be all for nothing. And thanks agen. RDgooner (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Newspaper.com access

Unfortunately I can't access the articles you mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parsons Grove, Arizona; is it possible to archive pages referenced so people who don't subscribe to newspapers.com can read the sources? Wayback Machine has a good browser plugin that makes it easy to archive pages if that works on this site. I'm not sure a stopping point for wilderness adventurers is necessarily something notable enough for an article but obviously I can't read how substantive these newspaper mentions are, as well as those you found for some of the links I added to your list. Cheers, Reywas92Talk 09:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Reywas92: They're not that substantive, but I think it's enough to pass WP:GEOLAND #1 (along with a Google search I performed, and searches on Parsons Canyon.) I'm much more concerned with places that were never inhabited (Road Junction Windmill) or subdivisions that were improperly coded in the GNIS (Autumn Ridge) than Parsons Grove, which has at least been referenced by both Tucson newspapers. Wikipedia editors can apply for newspapers.com access at the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. I highly recommend it. Absolutely changed the way I research North American articles, and was the only reason I was able to do the deep dive on these geostubs. SportingFlyer T·C 10:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

AFD for List of W-League (Australia) clubs

Can you consider the same deletion process for

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Tangerine Kitty Redirect

You redirected Tangerine Kitty, stating it was “unsourced”. That is completely ridiculous. I added sources to Tangerine Kitty’s charting songs. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @CheatCodes4ever: Look at the edit history - I wrote "undersourced." There was nothing in that article which demonstrated any notability, so I restored the redirect as opposed to nominating for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

But I did establish notability. I mentioned that “Dumb Ways To Die” charted, and I gave sources. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I respectfully disagree the sources showed notability, they just showed the song charted and the group existed, but not much else. SportingFlyer T·C 03:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Merry Christmas, SportingFlyer!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 11:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello SportingFlyer: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはSportingFlyerたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Kryptos Vollenweider

I would like to discuss rejected submission. Is this an appropriate venue for that? Kdtop (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Kdtop: Since I declined the submission, this is probably the right place. You need to add secondary sources which shows the album is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of my article was to expand the discography section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Vollenweider#Discography There is a stub there for someone to create a page for the Kryptos ablum, and I was trying to fill that void. I tried to copy the format that was used for other albums that the article links to. I don't have any documentation that this is a particularly notable album. But isn't there a role for this entry to be there for completeness? Kdtop (talk)

  • @Kdtop: Unfortunately we don't have any notability standards for completing a set - each album needs to be notable on their own. If there are independent reviews that might help? SportingFlyer T·C 23:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have found some independent reviews of the musical album that would help support this page being notable. Do I just include those in the references section? I tried reviewing the Wikipedia Notability page, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability) but I didn't see HOW to specify a supporting document for notability. I will try adding the additional links into the references section and resubmit. Will you be the one to review it again? Thanks Kdtop (talk)

  • @Kdtop: You don't have to specify which references qualify an article for notability, you just have to add them to the article using the <ref> tags. As a reviewer, some sources demonstrate notability and some sources don't - when there are a lot of sources and the notability is questionable I typically ask for the WP:THREE best sources which demonstrate notability, at which point the users who want to keep the article will specify which sources they think show notability in the discussion, but it's not likely you'll have to do this. Multiple independent reviews should be good enough for an album. When you're ready let me know and I'll review the article again. Good luck. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I have edited the submission to include the <ref> tags. I understand about the desire for quality and consistency, but all this is a bit overwhelming and discouraging. When you have a chance, can you look at the article again? Thanks. Kdtop (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Dont delete 2021 IPL

Hi, my name is 'Wikipedian Creator', I am currently focused on editing this page, as there have been new news of 2021 IPL so that it is almost 2020.

Thanks, Shubhay (wikipedian creator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian Creator (talk • contribs) 04:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Wikipedian Creator: Sorry, but our policy typically states we don't create articles for seasons beyond the current season per WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL unless notability is clearly shown, and all the article contained was one article with dates. The 2020 page was created around August 2019. SportingFlyer T·C 04:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but now the 2020 IPL season is about to start (aswell the 2020 Asia Cup and T20 World Cup), and with that going to start, somebody will have to write about the 2021 IPL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian Creator (talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How about the 2021 Champions Trophy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian Creator (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahem. I meant 2021 ICC Test Championship??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian Creator (talk • contribs) 01:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Now is it time for me to write up the 2021 IPL? Wikipedain Creator —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

                                                 Happy holidays

Happy New Year!
SportingFlyer,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America1000 22:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 03:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, SportingFlyer!

Happy New Year!

SportingFlyer,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-Nahal(T) 22:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Your draft article, User:SportingFlyer/2019–20 Uganda Premier League

Hello, SportingFlyer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2019–20 Uganda Premier League".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO revisited

Greetings, SportingFlyer. I initiated a discussion in the talk page of "Notability (people)" about the WP:ENTERTAINER section and specifically about the March 2019 addition of the last sentence in it. ("Previous criteria for pornographic actors and models were superseded by the above and the basic guidelines after a March 2019 request for comment.") Seeing as you seem to be the editor who placed that sentence, you're hereby notified in case you want to participate in the discussion. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. If you happen to know other editors who should be pinged about this, please let me know. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

List of XBox Games with Gold Deletion Review - thank you for the excellent explanation

Just wanted to say thanks for your thoughtful rationale on the close decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_January_7&oldid=prev&diff=935500149). I had a lot of doubts about the process when I saw the original discussion and the follow-on comments of the deleter, but your endorsement makes sense. Comments of that quality earlier in the discussion might have avoided a lot of the later vitriol. It looks like several people have already mirrored the original page content to other sites, so balance has been restored to the internet. Thank you! ChillThyself (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Sports seasons / deletion of Bekescsaba 1912 Elore season article

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Demokra (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SportingFlyer/Archive_2&oldid=999396884"